3 ms·
Yes, because it is monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. In isolated cases, it doesn't seem so bad. But you eventually end up with entire industries dominated
by morgante 5y ago
Yes, because it is monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. In isolated cases, it doesn't seem so bad. But you eventually end up with entire industries dominated by unions where you can't work at all without paying their protection money.
We have laws against corporations using market power to force monopolies. Unions also should not be able to legally monopolize the labor market.
- lmm 5y agoI would agree that if unions were significantly larger and more powerful than corporations then there might be an issue (just as corporations being significantly larger and more powerful than individual workers is an issue - that is after all what unions exist to address). But I highly doubt this union is bigger and more powerful than the NYT, and I rather doubt that any union is as big and powerful as Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/etc..
- eru 5y agoMany unions are active in entire industries (or more). Many companies are much smaller than that.
- lmm 5y agoSure, and maybe in cases where a single union has a monopoly on the labour supply for an industry then certain counterbalances would be appropriate, like allowing smaller companies operating in that industry to negotiate collectively with that union. I really don't think that's a relevant concern in this instance though.