4 ms·

>>Collective bargaining is not at all incompatible with a "free market.">> For what it's worth, collective bargaining is, from an economic perspective, a monop

>>Collective bargaining is not at all incompatible with a "free market.">> For what it's worth, collective bargaining is, from an economic perspective, a monopoly. In anti trust terms it would constitute an illegal combination in trade if it weren't for statutory exemptions that explicitly give it a pass.

danaris 5y ago
It's not really any more a monopoly than the business itself is. The business/management is a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least money possible for the most production possible. The employees/union are a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least production possible for the most money possible. A union seeks to even the playing field between management and labor. It's not a monopoly unless the local union is affiliated with a global union that includes the vast majority of all workers in that particular field.
- golergka 5y ago
  If I cannot work for a company without joining a union, it is a monopoly. What if I'm a junior worker on a labour market that is saturated by more experienced and skilled workers, and lowering my rate is the only chance to make it in the industry that I have? Existing union and it's members are my natural competitors.
  - danaris 5y ago
    If you're a junior worker in a field dominated by unions, I'm not sure how you can have "rate" to lower that hasn't already been set based on the market rate—which is already taking those unions into account. And the evidence is overwhelming that unionized workers make more than non-union workers of equivalent skills/qualifications. So it sounds like this boils down, once again, to the argument, "I am amazing and exceptional, and I'm afraid that if there were unions, I wouldn't be able to get more money for being amazing and exceptional." First of all, this argument cannot be true for the majority of workers—by definition, most people in any given field are not exceptional. So even if it would benefit you to not have a union, it would not benefit most people. Second of all, there is absolutely no requirement for unions to prevent compensation from being increased based on actual performance. Some unions may have strict seniority-based pay schedules, but not all that currently exist do, and if we were to create a brand new union for tech workers (or just for game devs), then the people actually forming that union would be the ones to decide what its priorities would be.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    you also cannot work for a company without working for said company (and their management) Are they also a monopoly?
    - CyanBird 5y ago
      They are a monopsony rather than a monopoly Joan Robinson studied labor and monopsony, her books are very illuminating for anyone interested
Dracophoenix 5y ago
Collective bargaining is more of a cartel (a labor cartel in this particular instance) than a monopoly. As one of the gp's pointed out, collective bargaining is not per se anti-free market (e.g. health insurance). Neither for that matter are cartels or monopolies so long as government interference remains absent. After all, free association is a right endowed to every market participants and it is a person's right to do as he/she will with it. I think the issue in this case relates more to national labor law creating uneven advantages for labor contra capital.

danaris 5y ago

It's not really any more a monopoly than the business itself is. The business/management is a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least money possible for the most production possible. The employees/union are a group of people acting under a common umbrella seeking (naïvely, and oversimplifiedly) to trade the least production possible for the most money possible. A union seeks to even the playing field between management and labor. It's not a monopoly unless the local union is affiliated with a global union that includes the vast majority of all workers in that particular field.

golergka 5y ago
If I cannot work for a company without joining a union, it is a monopoly. What if I'm a junior worker on a labour market that is saturated by more experienced and skilled workers, and lowering my rate is the only chance to make it in the industry that I have? Existing union and it's members are my natural competitors.
- danaris 5y ago
  If you're a junior worker in a field dominated by unions, I'm not sure how you can have "rate" to lower that hasn't already been set based on the market rate—which is already taking those unions into account. And the evidence is overwhelming that unionized workers make more than non-union workers of equivalent skills/qualifications. So it sounds like this boils down, once again, to the argument, "I am amazing and exceptional, and I'm afraid that if there were unions, I wouldn't be able to get more money for being amazing and exceptional." First of all, this argument cannot be true for the majority of workers—by definition, most people in any given field are not exceptional. So even if it would benefit you to not have a union, it would not benefit most people. Second of all, there is absolutely no requirement for unions to prevent compensation from being increased based on actual performance. Some unions may have strict seniority-based pay schedules, but not all that currently exist do, and if we were to create a brand new union for tech workers (or just for game devs), then the people actually forming that union would be the ones to decide what its priorities would be.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  you also cannot work for a company without working for said company (and their management) Are they also a monopoly?
  - CyanBird 5y ago
    They are a monopsony rather than a monopoly Joan Robinson studied labor and monopsony, her books are very illuminating for anyone interested

Dracophoenix 5y ago

Collective bargaining is more of a cartel (a labor cartel in this particular instance) than a monopoly. As one of the gp's pointed out, collective bargaining is not per se anti-free market (e.g. health insurance). Neither for that matter are cartels or monopolies so long as government interference remains absent. After all, free association is a right endowed to every market participants and it is a person's right to do as he/she will with it. I think the issue in this case relates more to national labor law creating uneven advantages for labor contra capital.