9 ms·

Yes, exactly. And it’s underhanded and illegal when employers do it, because there’s an imbalance of power between employee and employee. Unions exist to even

Yes, exactly. And it’s underhanded and illegal when employers do it, because there’s an imbalance of power between employee and employee. Unions exist to even out that balance of power. When employers engage in that kind of activity it further increases the imbalance of power. For example, in this case, they were using that tactic to support their ability to steal from employees.

mjburgess 3y ago
To clarify this further: The employer is already a collective, "A business", and the hiring manager is operating with the full power of that collective in hiring/firing negotations. A union is a collective to balance power against the business (collective). A cartel is a collective of collectives (ie., a group of businesses) operating to defeat free market competition regulation, in this sense the cartel is balancing power against the state -- which is the only permitted "collective of collectives". Cartels challenge states (power to create free markets), whereas unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire). This is why unions are permissible and cartels are not.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Unions are cartels of sellers of labor. If they're good or bad is another matter.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    Yeah, they can be, so its more vauge than i've made it out to be. The underlying problem is that employee-employer is individual-collective; so in some sense, there "has" to be a union option if this becomes too one sided. But a cartel is never required, since businesses competing with each other is the goal of a free market. I would agree that if unions become more powerful than businesses, so it ends up single-business vs "union-of-unions" you can get the same effects. Hopefully the asymmetry is clear though. Cartels are never permissible in a free market, but unions often are because of the need for labour to compete "on the same terms" as business. ie., the mere existence of a union isnt a sign the market is non-free; whereas the mere existence of a cartel is.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > If they're good or bad is another matter. It’s pretty clear what you think though.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  This is very simplistic, and somewhat wrong First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is. Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company. The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    err.. no, free markets are state constructions. By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states). As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.). A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
      - mjburgess 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dmoy 3y ago
  "Cartels of unions" or whatever are legal in some jurisdictions. See e.g. solidarity action / sympathy strikes. Depending on the country, that varies from "totally illegal" to "well of course you're gonna solidarity strike, that's how it's done".
- fallingknife 3y ago
  > unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire). Which is kind of the problem with unions. If they stuck to negotiating pay levels while leaving businesses free to hire and fire who they see fit I think employers would be much more willing to work with them. Higher salary expenses are much less damaging to a business than not being able to fire incompetent workers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mjburgess 3y ago

To clarify this further: The employer is already a collective, "A business", and the hiring manager is operating with the full power of that collective in hiring/firing negotations. A union is a collective to balance power against the business (collective). A cartel is a collective of collectives (ie., a group of businesses) operating to defeat free market competition regulation, in this sense the cartel is balancing power against the state -- which is the only permitted "collective of collectives". Cartels challenge states (power to create free markets), whereas unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire). This is why unions are permissible and cartels are not.

BurningFrog 3y ago
Unions are cartels of sellers of labor. If they're good or bad is another matter.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  Yeah, they can be, so its more vauge than i've made it out to be. The underlying problem is that employee-employer is individual-collective; so in some sense, there "has" to be a union option if this becomes too one sided. But a cartel is never required, since businesses competing with each other is the goal of a free market. I would agree that if unions become more powerful than businesses, so it ends up single-business vs "union-of-unions" you can get the same effects. Hopefully the asymmetry is clear though. Cartels are never permissible in a free market, but unions often are because of the need for labour to compete "on the same terms" as business. ie., the mere existence of a union isnt a sign the market is non-free; whereas the mere existence of a cartel is.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > If they're good or bad is another matter. It’s pretty clear what you think though.
phpisthebest 3y ago
This is very simplistic, and somewhat wrong First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is. Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company. The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union
- mjburgess 3y ago
  err.. no, free markets are state constructions. By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states). As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.). A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
    - mjburgess 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmoy 3y ago
"Cartels of unions" or whatever are legal in some jurisdictions. See e.g. solidarity action / sympathy strikes. Depending on the country, that varies from "totally illegal" to "well of course you're gonna solidarity strike, that's how it's done".
fallingknife 3y ago
> unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire). Which is kind of the problem with unions. If they stuck to negotiating pay levels while leaving businesses free to hire and fire who they see fit I think employers would be much more willing to work with them. Higher salary expenses are much less damaging to a business than not being able to fire incompetent workers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]