4 ms·

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
    This is widely known information and common knowledge about how most unions work in the US. UAW is just one example of many I'm not here to teach you the basics about unions, I'm here to talk about the economic impact of them as it applies to many industries in the US. If you feel I'm wrong, please disprove me. Otherwise, why comment at all?
    - cristiancavalli 3y ago
      I mean I just did. Your comment is just plain wrong in the face of the cited right to work law for Michigan. Any “requirements” would be this year alone due to the legality of the statute. It’s your turn to present something other than opinions posed as fact, blatant misinformation or in this response of yours an ad populum appeal that leads me to believe you have spent 0 time actually researching this. How do you square the right to work law in Michigan with your previous claim that Michigan ford shops are “all union” by requirement and not by the workers choice to unionize. How would that even be legal to force someone to join a union in right to work state? Hint: it isn't legal and therefore your claim is 100% provably wrong.
      - adam_arthur 3y ago
        A corporate monopoly is a company that consists of people freely choosing to work together, yet it is still a monopoly. There is no mandate to join the company A monopoly is not a monopoly due to it being enshrined or mandated by law, it is because it has market power far exceeding that of any current or future competitor. Because it is uneconomical to compete with them A deeply embedded labor union, even if nominally optional to join, is still a monopoly on labor because there is no incentive for an individual auto-worker to break off from the union. They have 0 individual bargaining power unless they are part of the union. Ford cannot go out and hire an entire set of "scabs" overnight to run their plants, because they lose too much collective domain knowledge and its too costly to do so. This makes labor unions such as UAW directly comparable to what a corporate monopoly looks like. It is a direct and clear analogy. Right to work is irrelevant here. Your entire counterpoint is based on misunderstanding the definition of a Monopoly. Anyway the semantics of what a "monopoly" is are subjective (is Apple or Google one?). This discussion is about "effective monopolies" and the economic impact when one body has enough market power that alternative options are not realistic, even if nominally available.

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
  This is widely known information and common knowledge about how most unions work in the US. UAW is just one example of many I'm not here to teach you the basics about unions, I'm here to talk about the economic impact of them as it applies to many industries in the US. If you feel I'm wrong, please disprove me. Otherwise, why comment at all?
  - cristiancavalli 3y ago
    I mean I just did. Your comment is just plain wrong in the face of the cited right to work law for Michigan. Any “requirements” would be this year alone due to the legality of the statute. It’s your turn to present something other than opinions posed as fact, blatant misinformation or in this response of yours an ad populum appeal that leads me to believe you have spent 0 time actually researching this. How do you square the right to work law in Michigan with your previous claim that Michigan ford shops are “all union” by requirement and not by the workers choice to unionize. How would that even be legal to force someone to join a union in right to work state? Hint: it isn't legal and therefore your claim is 100% provably wrong.
    - adam_arthur 3y ago
      A corporate monopoly is a company that consists of people freely choosing to work together, yet it is still a monopoly. There is no mandate to join the company A monopoly is not a monopoly due to it being enshrined or mandated by law, it is because it has market power far exceeding that of any current or future competitor. Because it is uneconomical to compete with them A deeply embedded labor union, even if nominally optional to join, is still a monopoly on labor because there is no incentive for an individual auto-worker to break off from the union. They have 0 individual bargaining power unless they are part of the union. Ford cannot go out and hire an entire set of "scabs" overnight to run their plants, because they lose too much collective domain knowledge and its too costly to do so. This makes labor unions such as UAW directly comparable to what a corporate monopoly looks like. It is a direct and clear analogy. Right to work is irrelevant here. Your entire counterpoint is based on misunderstanding the definition of a Monopoly. Anyway the semantics of what a "monopoly" is are subjective (is Apple or Google one?). This discussion is about "effective monopolies" and the economic impact when one body has enough market power that alternative options are not realistic, even if nominally available.