3 ms·
> 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 capab
by 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 agoTheoretically 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 agoIn 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 agoDoes that contract contain conditions forbidding employees from also joining other unions?
- cristiancavalli 3y agoWhich 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?