I'm no expert but some thoughts: That's an interesting point: could people be accused of anti-trust violations by agreeing to collude and not work under certain

I'm no expert but some thoughts: That's an interesting point: could people be accused of anti-trust violations by agreeing to collude and not work under certain circumstances? The difference boils down to what the purpose of laws are. Ultimately they exist to sustain a reasonably egalitarian free society. Obviously there are times and specific situations where we deviate more or less from the "ideal" society but the law shepherds us back toward an agreed-upon path. Basically the root of antitrust law is that concentration of power is anti-democratic and therefore must be controlled. In a situation of people colluding around work standards, there is a parallel to some extent but there isn't a clear power-player who emerges (except for the "Union" itself but that's made up of all the employees in a different way than the corporation is owned by its owners because individuals in a union are all essentially equally important to the union's strength, where in corporate ownership it's very clear that some individuals wield significantly (orders of magnitude) more power through wealth and control. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1239985?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103343963393 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1239985?uid=3739560&ui...