4 ms·

> If enough workers in a specific economic sector — retail, hotel services, nursing — voted for the measure, the secretary of labor could establish a bargaining

> If enough workers in a specific economic sector — retail, hotel services, nursing — voted for the measure, the secretary of labor could establish a bargaining panel made up of representatives elected by the workers. The panel could negotiate with companies to secure the best terms for workers across the industry. I'd be wary of these 'mega-unions' my SO has one here in Spain as she is a nurse and it hasn't been very good in practice. They often side with the employer (in this case the Government) and then there is little recourse for the employees to find better conditions or pay as the agreements are for the whole sector. That's not to say all unions are bad - it depends on the union, but having a few super unions seems to increase the probability you end up with bad ones.

manuelabeledo 4y ago
Things in the US are a bit different - for starters, there is not such thing as the Spanish “convenio”, thus companies are left to set their own terms, which, in most cases, is the bare minimum. Large unions do exist in the US, but again, they do not organise as their Spanish counterparts, as they only exist attached to a trade or industry. Thus, workers who want to organise, cannot just go and say “we are now represented by this or that union”, and if there is not an union to their trade, they would need to self organise into a small union, which obviously does not have the same bargaining power as a larger one, see the Starbucks employees unionising across the US.
vanilla_nut 4y ago
Sounds like a kind of monopoly to me! But this time on labor-employer relations. As usual, competition is necessary to encourage constant improvement. Without competition, workers have no way to "vote with their feet" and leave an abusive or incompetent union. I wonder if any countries regulate these kinds of unions as the monopolies that they are?
- tomrod 4y ago
  Yes! A chance to geek out on economics! A "monopoly" refers to supply side, when one supplier is (or practically is) the entire market supply. But on the demand side, the term is "monopsony." For example, the US Department of Defense is (probably) a monopsony for fighter pilots. The classic example is the company-owned coal town. Another term to remember is "regulatory capture." This usually refers to a government's regulators having their incentives captured by those they are intended to regulate. However, the incentive structures are more or less equivalent if an union is captured by a monopsony employer.
  - trilbyglens 4y ago
    Would a union controlling companies' access to labor not be considered supply side?
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Your intuition is going in the right direction. Workers, and worker aggregates in the form of unions or other entities, are the supply side for labor. They can be a monopoly (indeed, "better wages" and similar demands are expressions of market power). If there is only one demander (employer) for the labor, it would be a monopsony. Like a coal company in a company town.

manuelabeledo 4y ago

Things in the US are a bit different - for starters, there is not such thing as the Spanish “convenio”, thus companies are left to set their own terms, which, in most cases, is the bare minimum. Large unions do exist in the US, but again, they do not organise as their Spanish counterparts, as they only exist attached to a trade or industry. Thus, workers who want to organise, cannot just go and say “we are now represented by this or that union”, and if there is not an union to their trade, they would need to self organise into a small union, which obviously does not have the same bargaining power as a larger one, see the Starbucks employees unionising across the US.

vanilla_nut 4y ago

Sounds like a kind of monopoly to me! But this time on labor-employer relations. As usual, competition is necessary to encourage constant improvement. Without competition, workers have no way to "vote with their feet" and leave an abusive or incompetent union. I wonder if any countries regulate these kinds of unions as the monopolies that they are?

tomrod 4y ago
Yes! A chance to geek out on economics! A "monopoly" refers to supply side, when one supplier is (or practically is) the entire market supply. But on the demand side, the term is "monopsony." For example, the US Department of Defense is (probably) a monopsony for fighter pilots. The classic example is the company-owned coal town. Another term to remember is "regulatory capture." This usually refers to a government's regulators having their incentives captured by those they are intended to regulate. However, the incentive structures are more or less equivalent if an union is captured by a monopsony employer.
- trilbyglens 4y ago
  Would a union controlling companies' access to labor not be considered supply side?
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Your intuition is going in the right direction. Workers, and worker aggregates in the form of unions or other entities, are the supply side for labor. They can be a monopoly (indeed, "better wages" and similar demands are expressions of market power). If there is only one demander (employer) for the labor, it would be a monopsony. Like a coal company in a company town.