As an extension: an opposite of "collusion through common leadership" might be "collusion enabled by common exclusion"; in other words, blacklisting. The inver

As an extension: an opposite of "collusion through common leadership" might be "collusion enabled by common exclusion"; in other words, blacklisting. The inverse of a "no-poach list" would be a "no-hire list". In the past, blacklisting (now should be called denylisting) was a real labor issue. People who stood up for workers rights (think: coal-mining towns in the late 1wr800s) or had unpopular political views (think: Hollywood in the early cold war) were, so the story goes, put on shared lists and denied work. But the effect would be similar. Enabled beneficial collective action for the executive class, through a concerted and curated collection of who can participates in working together. Does tech do this, too? If so, it could explain the need to import labor, and reflect or contribute to an artificial inability to find high-tech labor domestically? That is-- some of the collusion enabled by "common leadership" might not be possible with a workforce having full agency--but, with the risk of blacklisting, basically, there is potentially another side to the collective action of the executive minority. Of course, blacklisting might be illegal, so, hard to learn about, but so might be some other other forms of collusion, which the paper talks about? I am not a lawyer, just wondering if this is part of a bigger workforce pattern, reaching further to the lower rungs of the ladder, too, even if in the inverse form (exclusion, not inclusion). Links: - https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/blacklists/ - https://pen.org/censored-free-speech-hollywood/