13 ms·

Unions are part of a healthy market economy. The succesful suppression of unions is a market failure.

AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
Unions are basically useless in a healthy market economy because then companies have to compete for customers and employees instead of having a monopoly, which causes them to have thin margins and therefore leave nothing on the table for collective bargaining to extract that wasn't already being extracted through competitive pressure. Meanwhile unions in a consolidated market have the perverse incentive to sustain the monopoly because then the union is extracting a portion of the monopoly rents the corporation is squeezing out of consumers at the expense of the 99% of workers who don't work for that specific company. Which is why consolidated markets need not unions but antitrust enforcement.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  Unions are about building worker rights and protections into the business expenses. When they are industry wide, it prevents any company from gaining an advantage by exploiting their workers. A strong market economy is orthogonal to the treatment of workers. For example, the economy of the early US was both very competitive and had slavery. Same for islands like Jamaica. The ideal is government regulation ensuring worker rights. Barring that, unions fill the role. Unions exist to fill a void created by a low regulation market. They are the libertarian solution.
  - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
    > When they are industry wide, it prevents any company from gaining an advantage by exploiting their workers. If one company is exploiting their workers in a competitive market, what prevents those workers from going to work for any of the other companies? > For example, the economy of the early US was both very competitive and had slavery. Slavery is a government regulation that says that if someone pays a stranger money then you have to do work you never agreed to do. Markets are the thing where you only have to do something if you agreed to do it. > They are the libertarian solution. They're an attempt to monopolize the labor market in an industry. When unsuccessful they're useless because they have no bargaining power, when successful they're an abusive monopolist extracting undue rents from that industry's customers.
    - cogman10 10mo ago
      > If one company is exploiting their workers in a competitive market, what prevents those workers from going to work for any of the other companies? Depends, is there a labor shortage or a surplus? It might be cheaper for a company to train a replacement than it is to treat employees better. If there's a labor surplus, then the employer has a lot of power of the situation. > Slavery is a government regulation that says that if someone pays a stranger money then you have to do work you never agreed to do. Nope. In fact, slavery was contract/property law. There wasn't a government regulation or statute that established or regulated it. That was part of the problem. Slavery was the ultimate in libertarian ideology because it recognized that through whatever means, individuals could end up the property of other individuals. It further recognized children as the property of their parents (and thus property of the slave owners). You can consider indentured servants, for example. Someone willingly signs themselves into slavery to pay off the debt (usually the boat ride to america). Slavery was a natural extension of that concept. The only role the government served in this situation was enforcing the slave contracts. > They're an attempt to monopolize the labor market in an industry. That's not a refutation. Libertarian ideology (particularly the free market form) has no problems with a monopoly. I do, which is why I think government regulations and actions to break up monopolies is a good thing. But in a market without government protection for workers, unions forming a labor monopoly is the only solution which can counteract the inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. I'd not classify them as "abusive" because far more people benefit from strong employee protections than the people harmed by those protections. The ultimate harm is it makes businesses less profitable.
      - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
        > Depends, is there a labor shortage or a surplus? That determines things like wages. It doesn't allow companies to do things like cause $1000 in damage to you in order to save $10, because then they'd have to pay you $1000 more than the company that isn't doing that or you'd still go work there instead. Also, if there is a labor surplus then how is a union going to do any good? The company would just let them go on strike and hire replacements. > In fact, slavery was contract/property law. That seems to have the word "law" in it. > It further recognized children as the property of their parents (and thus property of the slave owners). Which is obviously not something the child consented to. > You can consider indentured servants, for example. Someone willingly signs themselves into slavery to pay off the debt (usually the boat ride to america). There are arguments to be made against this, but it's significantly more defensible than doing it without consent. Because then who is going to do it? And how is it really different than e.g. non-dischargeable student loans, a thing the government still does? > The only role the government served in this situation was enforcing the slave contracts. The only role the government serves in a contract to form a cartel is enforcing the contract too, which is why there are contracts the government shouldn't enforce. > Libertarian ideology (particularly the free market form) has no problems with a monopoly. Libertarian ideology assumes that monopolies form as a result of government rules. It obviously can't allow for unrestricted anti-competitive contracts because then someone with a monopoly on any necessity could force everyone into a contract to form a dictatorial government, which is anathema to the entire ideology. But contract law is the government. A government that didn't enforce contracts at all and only enforced laws against violence would be perfectly consistent with it, whereas a government that enforces contracts you never agreed to or that you were forced to sign under duress would not. > But in a market without unions and government protection for workers, unions forming a labor monopoly is the only solution which can counteract the inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. How is there an inherent power imbalance in a competitive market? They can choose a different employee and you can choose a different employer. > I'd not classify them as "abusive" because far more people benefit from strong employee protections than the people harmed by those protections. The ultimate harm is it makes businesses less profitable. The ultimate harm is that it makes the industry's products worse or more expensive to customers, or increases market consolidation if a union destroys a company in an industry with high barriers to entry and thereby causes there to be fewer of them.
- ethbr1 10mo ago
  > Meanwhile unions in a consolidated market have the perverse incentive to sustain the monopoly because then the union is extracting a portion of the monopoly rents the corporation is squeezing out of consumers at the expense of the 99% of workers who don't work for that specific company. This still sounds like an improvement over the American consolidated market status quo, where the companies and shareholders retain more of the monopoly rents. Antitrust enforcement would be great, but absent an 1880s-1910s level push, isn't going to happen. So why not improve things in the meantime?
  - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
    > Antitrust enforcement would be great, but absent an 1880s-1910s level push, isn't going to happen. Let's do that then. > This still sounds like an improvement over the American consolidated market status quo, where the companies and shareholders retain more of the monopoly rents. Except that you then get the union lobbying to sustain the monopoly instead of eliminate it, which makes it even harder to do the thing that actually needs to be done.
    - ethbr1 10mo ago
      > Let's do [an 1880s-1910s level push for antitrust enforcement] then. The last time that happened was a pre-globalized world, multiple decades of building pressure (including the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act), and the youngest US president to ever assume office (Teddy Roosevelt). That's a confluence of events I'm not betting on naturally replicating. Step 1 would be passing an update to the Sherman Act through Congress that would survive the current Supreme Court.
      - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
        > Step 1 would be passing an update to the Sherman Act through Congress that would survive the current Supreme Court. The nice thing about antitrust laws is that they're right in the core of the interstate commerce clause, so it's a real stretch to find them unconstitutional and in practice that hasn't been what has happened. Instead, because the Sherman Act is extremely broad but not very detailed, they've just been narrowly interpreting it. Which wouldn't work if you would pass something that explicitly spelled out some of the things. Like just go make a list of all the existing antitrust cases where something bad was found not to be a violation and make a line in the new law that explicitly calls out that one as "yes it is". Which deletes all the precedents anyone could use to claim that their bad behavior is allowed, since Congress just explicitly said that it isn't. Another great improvement would be to allow anyone to sue for antitrust violations instead of requiring the government prosecutor to do it. It would also help to get some bipartisanship happening. The current Court has a conservative majority but you only need to convince two out of six, and some of them are more partisan than others, which actually gives you two ways to win. One, you make a good argument and convince the reasonable ones. Two, you stir up the conservative base against some California corporations. Probably easier to do the next time there is a Democratic administration because then they'll start kowtowing to the new administration instead of Trump and thereby anger the conservatives again.
hellojesus 10mo ago
Current US law forces companies to negotiate with a union if it's employees vote for it. That seems like the opposite of a healthy market; it is a market in severe regulatory capture. A healthy market would allow voluntary decisions by both parties. It would allow management to choose whether they want to negotiate with a collective broker, and it would allow workers to choose whether they want to find employment congruent with their preferences to either self negotiate or hire a third party.

Unions are basically useless in a healthy market economy because then companies have to compete for customers and employees instead of having a monopoly, which causes them to have thin margins and therefore leave nothing on the table for collective bargaining to extract that wasn't already being extracted through competitive pressure. Meanwhile unions in a consolidated market have the perverse incentive to sustain the monopoly because then the union is extracting a portion of the monopoly rents the corporation is squeezing out of consumers at the expense of the 99% of workers who don't work for that specific company. Which is why consolidated markets need not unions but antitrust enforcement.

cogman10 10mo ago
Unions are about building worker rights and protections into the business expenses. When they are industry wide, it prevents any company from gaining an advantage by exploiting their workers. A strong market economy is orthogonal to the treatment of workers. For example, the economy of the early US was both very competitive and had slavery. Same for islands like Jamaica. The ideal is government regulation ensuring worker rights. Barring that, unions fill the role. Unions exist to fill a void created by a low regulation market. They are the libertarian solution.
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  > When they are industry wide, it prevents any company from gaining an advantage by exploiting their workers. If one company is exploiting their workers in a competitive market, what prevents those workers from going to work for any of the other companies? > For example, the economy of the early US was both very competitive and had slavery. Slavery is a government regulation that says that if someone pays a stranger money then you have to do work you never agreed to do. Markets are the thing where you only have to do something if you agreed to do it. > They are the libertarian solution. They're an attempt to monopolize the labor market in an industry. When unsuccessful they're useless because they have no bargaining power, when successful they're an abusive monopolist extracting undue rents from that industry's customers.
  - cogman10 10mo ago
    > If one company is exploiting their workers in a competitive market, what prevents those workers from going to work for any of the other companies? Depends, is there a labor shortage or a surplus? It might be cheaper for a company to train a replacement than it is to treat employees better. If there's a labor surplus, then the employer has a lot of power of the situation. > Slavery is a government regulation that says that if someone pays a stranger money then you have to do work you never agreed to do. Nope. In fact, slavery was contract/property law. There wasn't a government regulation or statute that established or regulated it. That was part of the problem. Slavery was the ultimate in libertarian ideology because it recognized that through whatever means, individuals could end up the property of other individuals. It further recognized children as the property of their parents (and thus property of the slave owners). You can consider indentured servants, for example. Someone willingly signs themselves into slavery to pay off the debt (usually the boat ride to america). Slavery was a natural extension of that concept. The only role the government served in this situation was enforcing the slave contracts. > They're an attempt to monopolize the labor market in an industry. That's not a refutation. Libertarian ideology (particularly the free market form) has no problems with a monopoly. I do, which is why I think government regulations and actions to break up monopolies is a good thing. But in a market without government protection for workers, unions forming a labor monopoly is the only solution which can counteract the inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. I'd not classify them as "abusive" because far more people benefit from strong employee protections than the people harmed by those protections. The ultimate harm is it makes businesses less profitable.
    - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
      > Depends, is there a labor shortage or a surplus? That determines things like wages. It doesn't allow companies to do things like cause $1000 in damage to you in order to save $10, because then they'd have to pay you $1000 more than the company that isn't doing that or you'd still go work there instead. Also, if there is a labor surplus then how is a union going to do any good? The company would just let them go on strike and hire replacements. > In fact, slavery was contract/property law. That seems to have the word "law" in it. > It further recognized children as the property of their parents (and thus property of the slave owners). Which is obviously not something the child consented to. > You can consider indentured servants, for example. Someone willingly signs themselves into slavery to pay off the debt (usually the boat ride to america). There are arguments to be made against this, but it's significantly more defensible than doing it without consent. Because then who is going to do it? And how is it really different than e.g. non-dischargeable student loans, a thing the government still does? > The only role the government served in this situation was enforcing the slave contracts. The only role the government serves in a contract to form a cartel is enforcing the contract too, which is why there are contracts the government shouldn't enforce. > Libertarian ideology (particularly the free market form) has no problems with a monopoly. Libertarian ideology assumes that monopolies form as a result of government rules. It obviously can't allow for unrestricted anti-competitive contracts because then someone with a monopoly on any necessity could force everyone into a contract to form a dictatorial government, which is anathema to the entire ideology. But contract law is the government. A government that didn't enforce contracts at all and only enforced laws against violence would be perfectly consistent with it, whereas a government that enforces contracts you never agreed to or that you were forced to sign under duress would not. > But in a market without unions and government protection for workers, unions forming a labor monopoly is the only solution which can counteract the inherent power imbalance between employer and employee. How is there an inherent power imbalance in a competitive market? They can choose a different employee and you can choose a different employer. > I'd not classify them as "abusive" because far more people benefit from strong employee protections than the people harmed by those protections. The ultimate harm is it makes businesses less profitable. The ultimate harm is that it makes the industry's products worse or more expensive to customers, or increases market consolidation if a union destroys a company in an industry with high barriers to entry and thereby causes there to be fewer of them.
ethbr1 10mo ago
> Meanwhile unions in a consolidated market have the perverse incentive to sustain the monopoly because then the union is extracting a portion of the monopoly rents the corporation is squeezing out of consumers at the expense of the 99% of workers who don't work for that specific company. This still sounds like an improvement over the American consolidated market status quo, where the companies and shareholders retain more of the monopoly rents. Antitrust enforcement would be great, but absent an 1880s-1910s level push, isn't going to happen. So why not improve things in the meantime?
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  > Antitrust enforcement would be great, but absent an 1880s-1910s level push, isn't going to happen. Let's do that then. > This still sounds like an improvement over the American consolidated market status quo, where the companies and shareholders retain more of the monopoly rents. Except that you then get the union lobbying to sustain the monopoly instead of eliminate it, which makes it even harder to do the thing that actually needs to be done.
  - ethbr1 10mo ago
    > Let's do [an 1880s-1910s level push for antitrust enforcement] then. The last time that happened was a pre-globalized world, multiple decades of building pressure (including the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act), and the youngest US president to ever assume office (Teddy Roosevelt). That's a confluence of events I'm not betting on naturally replicating. Step 1 would be passing an update to the Sherman Act through Congress that would survive the current Supreme Court.
    - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
      > Step 1 would be passing an update to the Sherman Act through Congress that would survive the current Supreme Court. The nice thing about antitrust laws is that they're right in the core of the interstate commerce clause, so it's a real stretch to find them unconstitutional and in practice that hasn't been what has happened. Instead, because the Sherman Act is extremely broad but not very detailed, they've just been narrowly interpreting it. Which wouldn't work if you would pass something that explicitly spelled out some of the things. Like just go make a list of all the existing antitrust cases where something bad was found not to be a violation and make a line in the new law that explicitly calls out that one as "yes it is". Which deletes all the precedents anyone could use to claim that their bad behavior is allowed, since Congress just explicitly said that it isn't. Another great improvement would be to allow anyone to sue for antitrust violations instead of requiring the government prosecutor to do it. It would also help to get some bipartisanship happening. The current Court has a conservative majority but you only need to convince two out of six, and some of them are more partisan than others, which actually gives you two ways to win. One, you make a good argument and convince the reasonable ones. Two, you stir up the conservative base against some California corporations. Probably easier to do the next time there is a Democratic administration because then they'll start kowtowing to the new administration instead of Trump and thereby anger the conservatives again.

hellojesus 10mo ago

Current US law forces companies to negotiate with a union if it's employees vote for it. That seems like the opposite of a healthy market; it is a market in severe regulatory capture. A healthy market would allow voluntary decisions by both parties. It would allow management to choose whether they want to negotiate with a collective broker, and it would allow workers to choose whether they want to find employment congruent with their preferences to either self negotiate or hire a third party.