3 ms·

Sounds like unions should be exposed to market competition; the effects you describe is what happens in a monopoly.

by teddyh 3y ago

echelon 3y ago
This is interesting, but what would that look like?
- teddyh 3y ago
  I don’t know. Do unions themselves preclude the possibility of people being a member of more than one union?
adam_arthur 3y ago
A union is effectively a monopoly on labor supply. With all the same ramifications that a corporate monopoly has. In some cases union labor can be circumvented (hiring non-union labor), but for some industries/businesses this is not possible on a short timeframe
- teddyh 3y ago
  > A union is effectively a monopoly on labor supply. I can see how you could see it that way, but it’s actually the reverse. A union is actually a force capable of denying labor to an employer. Viewed in this way, there is nothing precluding another union to also withhold the same employees from working. Employees could, theoretically, be members of more than one union. Employers would then have to satisfy the requirements of all extant unions. (I have no idea why this is being downvoted. I can only guess that people think I am implying something again.)
  - adam_arthur 3y ago
    Theoretically if you have many unions competing for work, this would be the case. Practically that's not how it tends to work in the US. In most cases there is one industry wide or company specific union, without competing alternatives.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    In many industries in the US, joining a specific union is a condition of employment at a company that has a union contract. It is a monopoly on labor, full stop. Not all monopolies are intentionally bad, but they all exist with the same perverse incentives that can run counter to the goals of everyone involved.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Does that contract contain conditions forbidding employees from also joining other unions?
    - cristiancavalli 3y ago
      Which industries? If you’re gonna point to SAG then sure there are union gigs but that does not preclude one from becoming an actor and working in non union gigs. Perhaps you mean non right to work states?
- cristiancavalli 3y ago
  Can you proffer any evidence/data to that effect? If it is a monopoly how can we have many non-unionized auto workers working for Tesla and Toyota?
  - adam_arthur 3y ago
    Ford has auto plants in Michigan with effectively 100% union labor. If Ford wants to invest in these plants or hire more people, they must hire them from the union. There is no competing, alternative union, or mechanism to hire non-union labor into this plant, thus making the UAW a local monopoly on labor supply for those plants. Ford can offshore the manufacturing to bypass the union, yes, but not in the immediate term. It requires large capital investments and years of planning. But in the end it tends to be worth it monetarily for most manufacturing businesses to do this. Which is why any job that involves a large amount manual labor that can be outsourced, tends to get outsourced. Lower cost of production is quite good for society, by the way. It's what enables goods and technology to be so cheap in real terms versus the past, when food consumption used to be a large percentage of a family's spending. Eventually automation will replace the need for manual labor, thus outsourcing. Manufacturing plant location would be driven more by cost to transport inputs than cost of labor
    - cristiancavalli 3y ago
      You’re gonna have to cite some sources. I’ve been looking and can’t find a single piece of evidence to back up your claim of union only shops in Michigan. To the contrary Michigan was a right to work state until 2023: “In 2012, Michigan enacted a right-to-work statute that prevented employees from being forced to join or financially support a labor union as a condition of employment” Which means they can’t force you to join the union. Maybe you’re use of the word “effectively” is meant to carry the weight of this oversight — although that would imply that, since the workers were not forced to join the union they did so of their own volition? Which I’m sure is not the point you are trying to make. Where’s the evidence of the claims?
      - adam_arthur 3y ago
prmoustache 3y ago
Aren't they already? In the countries I've lived in there can be several unions and they decide independently when to start and stop engaging in a negociation / strike / whatever.
- underseacables 3y ago
  They are not. As far as I know, you can't just fire striking union workers. Unions force companies to only hire union members, and freeze out everyone else. They also have the ability to hold a gun to the corporations head and say look, we're going to strike and destroy your business whether you like it or not, unless you meet our demands. The bullet in the gun is the government. That is absolutely not market forces. Quite simply unions could not exist without government backing.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Unions force companies to only hire union members, and freeze out everyone else. This is due to American laws not protecting workers from unions. This isn't the case in for example EU. > Quite simply unions could not exist without government backing. They can and they did exist without government backing. Union laws in most countries are to weaken unions since they are too strong otherwise, not to give them more power. For example unions forcing exclusivity is due to lack of laws protecting workers from unions.

Sounds like unions should be exposed to market competition; the effects you describe is what happens in a monopoly.

by teddyh 3y ago

Sounds like unions should be exposed to market competition; the effects you describe is what happens in a monopoly.

echelon 3y ago

This is interesting, but what would that look like?

teddyh 3y ago
I don’t know. Do unions themselves preclude the possibility of people being a member of more than one union?

adam_arthur 3y ago

A union is effectively a monopoly on labor supply. With all the same ramifications that a corporate monopoly has. In some cases union labor can be circumvented (hiring non-union labor), but for some industries/businesses this is not possible on a short timeframe

teddyh 3y ago
> A union is effectively a monopoly on labor supply. I can see how you could see it that way, but it’s actually the reverse. A union is actually a force capable of denying labor to an employer. Viewed in this way, there is nothing precluding another union to also withhold the same employees from working. Employees could, theoretically, be members of more than one union. Employers would then have to satisfy the requirements of all extant unions. (I have no idea why this is being downvoted. I can only guess that people think I am implying something again.)
- adam_arthur 3y ago
  Theoretically if you have many unions competing for work, this would be the case. Practically that's not how it tends to work in the US. In most cases there is one industry wide or company specific union, without competing alternatives.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  In many industries in the US, joining a specific union is a condition of employment at a company that has a union contract. It is a monopoly on labor, full stop. Not all monopolies are intentionally bad, but they all exist with the same perverse incentives that can run counter to the goals of everyone involved.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    Does that contract contain conditions forbidding employees from also joining other unions?
  - cristiancavalli 3y ago
    Which industries? If you’re gonna point to SAG then sure there are union gigs but that does not preclude one from becoming an actor and working in non union gigs. Perhaps you mean non right to work states?
cristiancavalli 3y ago
Can you proffer any evidence/data to that effect? If it is a monopoly how can we have many non-unionized auto workers working for Tesla and Toyota?
- adam_arthur 3y ago
  Ford has auto plants in Michigan with effectively 100% union labor. If Ford wants to invest in these plants or hire more people, they must hire them from the union. There is no competing, alternative union, or mechanism to hire non-union labor into this plant, thus making the UAW a local monopoly on labor supply for those plants. Ford can offshore the manufacturing to bypass the union, yes, but not in the immediate term. It requires large capital investments and years of planning. But in the end it tends to be worth it monetarily for most manufacturing businesses to do this. Which is why any job that involves a large amount manual labor that can be outsourced, tends to get outsourced. Lower cost of production is quite good for society, by the way. It's what enables goods and technology to be so cheap in real terms versus the past, when food consumption used to be a large percentage of a family's spending. Eventually automation will replace the need for manual labor, thus outsourcing. Manufacturing plant location would be driven more by cost to transport inputs than cost of labor
  - cristiancavalli 3y ago
    You’re gonna have to cite some sources. I’ve been looking and can’t find a single piece of evidence to back up your claim of union only shops in Michigan. To the contrary Michigan was a right to work state until 2023: “In 2012, Michigan enacted a right-to-work statute that prevented employees from being forced to join or financially support a labor union as a condition of employment” Which means they can’t force you to join the union. Maybe you’re use of the word “effectively” is meant to carry the weight of this oversight — although that would imply that, since the workers were not forced to join the union they did so of their own volition? Which I’m sure is not the point you are trying to make. Where’s the evidence of the claims?
    - adam_arthur 3y ago

prmoustache 3y ago

Aren't they already? In the countries I've lived in there can be several unions and they decide independently when to start and stop engaging in a negociation / strike / whatever.

underseacables 3y ago
They are not. As far as I know, you can't just fire striking union workers. Unions force companies to only hire union members, and freeze out everyone else. They also have the ability to hold a gun to the corporations head and say look, we're going to strike and destroy your business whether you like it or not, unless you meet our demands. The bullet in the gun is the government. That is absolutely not market forces. Quite simply unions could not exist without government backing.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Unions force companies to only hire union members, and freeze out everyone else. This is due to American laws not protecting workers from unions. This isn't the case in for example EU. > Quite simply unions could not exist without government backing. They can and they did exist without government backing. Union laws in most countries are to weaken unions since they are too strong otherwise, not to give them more power. For example unions forcing exclusivity is due to lack of laws protecting workers from unions.