5 ms·

Unions are cartels for workers. They are anticompetitive in the same way that cartels are.

tbrownaw 3y ago
In theory this just lets them achieve equal power to employers who they are canonically opposed to, and is therefore a good thing.
- memefrog 3y ago
  Employers and employees are not opposed to each other, and nothing would ever get done if they were. They have a symbiotic relationship. Employers are, contrary to what you have implied, not permitted to band together to negotiate as a group. That is called wage fixing.
eesmith 3y ago
I already pointed out how the definition "collusion" doesn't fit most union agreements. You have not shown there is collusion. Instead, you double down and say it's a cartel. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel > A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. If there is no collusion, there is no cartel. Where is the collusion? If 7-11 and Coca-Cola reach an agreement for Coca-Cola be the sole cola supplier to 7-11 in exchange for a reduced price, that is not collusion, that is not a cartel, that is not anti-competitive. Yet if 7-11 and labor organization reach an agreement that the labor organization be the sole supplier of a certain type of labor, that is collusion, a cartel, and anti-competitive? Where is the collusion?
- memefrog 3y ago
  Argument from dictionary definition is cringe. If employers refuse to negotiate with employees individually, and set a fixed maximum price for labour, that is clearly unlawful, collusive, cartel behaviour. If they enforced this by refusing to honour their contracts and refusing to pay employees or give them work, this would also be unlawful. If employees do the same then the left pretends it is normal. Note that unions had to be made legal by legislative fiat. At common law, unions were illegal associations in restraint of trade.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Words - what do they mean? Maybe your comments are a collusive act. Maybe you and I have formed a cartel together. I don't know. If only there were some way to learn what how words are commonly used. Words? Words? What are words? > If employers refuse to negotiate with employees individually, and set a fixed maximum price for labour, that is clearly unlawful, collusive, cartel behaviour. Even if we accept your (cringe?) example, you must surely notice that you are using "employer" here to mean a collective, abstract economic entity, and not the people in the company who can make decisions about the employees in the company. If the managers at the same company set a fixed maximum price for labor, and refuse to negotiate with employees individually, that's considered standard practice. By your logic then, if employees at the same company set a fixed maximum price for labor, and refuse to negotiate with employers individually, that should also be fine. So your complaint isn't about unions per se, but about multi-corporation unions. In any case, if unions are "clearly unlawful", what law do they break? While we can point to the law Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe broke in their illegal non-compete collusion. If you can't point to a law being broken, it's not unlawful. (That's one of those cringe definition things, I know.) > "The left pretends it is normal" How do you know they are pretending? Do you pretend that women suffrage is normal? How long does it take for something to become normal? Recognized, legal unions in the US have been around for longer than the nationwide right for women to vote. What does left/right have to do with it? When President Reagan, famed for not being on the left, declare: "By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights — the right to belong to a free trade union." was he pretending too? If he meant it, when did the right start pretending? > Note that unions had to be made legal by legislative fiat. Let's examine this proposition, and set aside for now the cringe question of what "fiat" means. Corporations were made legal by legislative fiat. You don't seem to have a problem with incorporated corporations, or with limited liability, so why would you have a problem with unions? What legislative fiat do you refer to? In the US, the intrinsic legality of unions under the Constitution was established by Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), which would be from the judicial system, not legislative. That case directly addresses common law, and points out how earlier cases usually involved a union doing something illegal, like The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10 where the tailors wanted to raise "wages above the rate fixed by a general act of parliament. It was therefore a conspiracy to violate a general statute law". It give a working definition of conspiracy (how cringe!) "Without attempting to review and reconcile all the cases, we are of opinion, that as a general description, though perhaps not a precise and accurate definition, a conspiracy must be a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means. We use the terms criminal or unlawful, because it is manifest that many acts are unlawful, which are not punishable by indictment or other public prosecution; and yet there is no doubt, we think, that a combination by numbers to do them would be an unlawful conspiracy, and punishable by indictment." and later concludes that unions are legal, so long as they use legal methods: "We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy." You'll note the strong contrast between that legal decision and the viewpoint you espouse. I imagine you might now claim that unions were made legal through judicial fiat. Shrug. Then your issue is with how laws are created, not unions. You like laws which protect capital, but not ones which protect labor. Got it.

In theory this just lets them achieve equal power to employers who they are canonically opposed to, and is therefore a good thing.

memefrog 3y ago
Employers and employees are not opposed to each other, and nothing would ever get done if they were. They have a symbiotic relationship. Employers are, contrary to what you have implied, not permitted to band together to negotiate as a group. That is called wage fixing.

eesmith 3y ago

I already pointed out how the definition "collusion" doesn't fit most union agreements. You have not shown there is collusion. Instead, you double down and say it's a cartel. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel > A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. If there is no collusion, there is no cartel. Where is the collusion? If 7-11 and Coca-Cola reach an agreement for Coca-Cola be the sole cola supplier to 7-11 in exchange for a reduced price, that is not collusion, that is not a cartel, that is not anti-competitive. Yet if 7-11 and labor organization reach an agreement that the labor organization be the sole supplier of a certain type of labor, that is collusion, a cartel, and anti-competitive? Where is the collusion?

memefrog 3y ago
Argument from dictionary definition is cringe. If employers refuse to negotiate with employees individually, and set a fixed maximum price for labour, that is clearly unlawful, collusive, cartel behaviour. If they enforced this by refusing to honour their contracts and refusing to pay employees or give them work, this would also be unlawful. If employees do the same then the left pretends it is normal. Note that unions had to be made legal by legislative fiat. At common law, unions were illegal associations in restraint of trade.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Words - what do they mean? Maybe your comments are a collusive act. Maybe you and I have formed a cartel together. I don't know. If only there were some way to learn what how words are commonly used. Words? Words? What are words? > If employers refuse to negotiate with employees individually, and set a fixed maximum price for labour, that is clearly unlawful, collusive, cartel behaviour. Even if we accept your (cringe?) example, you must surely notice that you are using "employer" here to mean a collective, abstract economic entity, and not the people in the company who can make decisions about the employees in the company. If the managers at the same company set a fixed maximum price for labor, and refuse to negotiate with employees individually, that's considered standard practice. By your logic then, if employees at the same company set a fixed maximum price for labor, and refuse to negotiate with employers individually, that should also be fine. So your complaint isn't about unions per se, but about multi-corporation unions. In any case, if unions are "clearly unlawful", what law do they break? While we can point to the law Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe broke in their illegal non-compete collusion. If you can't point to a law being broken, it's not unlawful. (That's one of those cringe definition things, I know.) > "The left pretends it is normal" How do you know they are pretending? Do you pretend that women suffrage is normal? How long does it take for something to become normal? Recognized, legal unions in the US have been around for longer than the nationwide right for women to vote. What does left/right have to do with it? When President Reagan, famed for not being on the left, declare: "By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights — the right to belong to a free trade union." was he pretending too? If he meant it, when did the right start pretending? > Note that unions had to be made legal by legislative fiat. Let's examine this proposition, and set aside for now the cringe question of what "fiat" means. Corporations were made legal by legislative fiat. You don't seem to have a problem with incorporated corporations, or with limited liability, so why would you have a problem with unions? What legislative fiat do you refer to? In the US, the intrinsic legality of unions under the Constitution was established by Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842), which would be from the judicial system, not legislative. That case directly addresses common law, and points out how earlier cases usually involved a union doing something illegal, like The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10 where the tailors wanted to raise "wages above the rate fixed by a general act of parliament. It was therefore a conspiracy to violate a general statute law". It give a working definition of conspiracy (how cringe!) "Without attempting to review and reconcile all the cases, we are of opinion, that as a general description, though perhaps not a precise and accurate definition, a conspiracy must be a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means. We use the terms criminal or unlawful, because it is manifest that many acts are unlawful, which are not punishable by indictment or other public prosecution; and yet there is no doubt, we think, that a combination by numbers to do them would be an unlawful conspiracy, and punishable by indictment." and later concludes that unions are legal, so long as they use legal methods: "We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy." You'll note the strong contrast between that legal decision and the viewpoint you espouse. I imagine you might now claim that unions were made legal through judicial fiat. Shrug. Then your issue is with how laws are created, not unions. You like laws which protect capital, but not ones which protect labor. Got it.