🇳🇱
I have always been a big supporter of #unions but lately I have been second-guessing that and debating with myself if I might actually change my views to be against unions....
My thinking is simple.. I am a huge supporter of anti-trust laws. Essentially I dont think companies should be allowed to create coalitions with the intention of price-fixing the market. This makes sense to me, companies **must** compete or else they can become too powerful.
If i believe in that logic then I should, by similar logic, be against unions. Unions are effectively large groups of people getting together to carry out price-fixing of their labour.
@freemo Unions is to give the workers a fair treatment, isn't it? To stop companies from acting like assholes to their workers.
Price-fixing labour sounds not as bad as price-fixing the market. After all, what is minimum wage if not price-fixing too? Or did you want to get rid of that as well?
@trinsec Everyone wants more, everyone thinks they arent treated fair. Companies think they pay too much for employees and may just as well view themselves as the one not getting fair treatment.
The anti-trust laws on companies is specifically there to ensure fair market value (no price fixing), so thats already how they get fair treatment.
I am also against minimum wage, it has caused enormous harm to the poor.
@freemo How does minimum wage cause harm to the poor?
@trinsec Because minimum wage is well known to cause unemployment shifts towards the poor... Higher minimum wage means hiring shifts so that fewer poor/low-educated people are hired and more higher-education people are hired. Minimum wage effectively increases unemployment amongst the group of people that you are trying to help (the poor) doing more harm than good.
@freemo Huh. That might be an American thing? Here, people are reluctant to hire well-educated people for low-skill jobs, because they tend to stay a short time because they'd get bored and move on to jobs that actually suit their level.
@trinsec No its pretty universal in the world... It isnt the result of high-education people getting hired for low skilled jobs. It is instead the fact that high-education positions that automate low-skilled jobs emerge. People are hired to build self-chekout machines and to maintain them, and the cashiers loose their job entierly. As minimum wage increases this accelerates.
@freemo *Giggles* Self-checkout machines are starting to fall in disfavor around here because theft is hugely on the rise due to inflation. Those companies aren't saving anything, just as a funny aside.
There's a personnel shortage everywhere, too. I'd say minimum wage is actually helping out a lot right now. If there was too many workers and not enough jobs, you'd have a point. But right now, not really.
Giggles Self-checkout machines are starting to fall in disfavor around here because theft is hugely on the rise due to inflation. Those companies aren’t saving anything, just as a funny aside.
Thats the thing there are plenty of downsides to self-checkout… which is why many store owners might be resistant to it. But the more you price-fix the cost of labour with minimum wage the more those down-sides are worth it since there is a point where the costs balance out.
When there is a shortage of workers you dont need unions, thats the point, market pressures increase your pay as is since companies now need to compete to hire you aware… So there really is no good argument for needing unions in that scenario.
@freemo We had teacher strikes, cop strikes, etc, because of the government’s decisions. Only possible with unions because how else will you organize this? Here the strikes are usually against government, not so much against companies. At least, not at that large scale. How do you figure this will fit here?
@trinsec You wont have strikes, strikes shouldnt be allowed, that is price-fixing and would be no different than companies organizing together and refusing to give their services at the market price…
Now you CAN have protests, and those get organized all the time. So nothing stopping people from protesting these issues still.
@freemo Well, the strikes aren’t always about increasing wages, actually. It’s also about lowering work pressure and all that. You seem to be focused on price-fixing here.
@trinsec The idea is the same even when you talk about other features… and it works the same on the flip-side with antitrust… companies might not create coalitions just to price-fix, maybe they want to sell their product at the same price but be allowed to use all sorts of dangerous chemicals, or build it with cheap parts.. The concept is the same even beyond price-fixing, its just easier to talk in price fixing terms.
We already know from expiernce that doesnt work. We created anti-trust laws with very good reason, because when they are allowed to coordinate and price fix the markets collapse.
You’re making an argument against firms being able to entire into exclusive contracts with suppliers, not against price-fixing.
@HeavenlyPossum @trinsec @JonKramer
No not at all this has nothibg to do with exclusive contracts
A labor union merely acts as a labor-selling firm. Some of these labor firms enter into exclusive supplier contracts with other firms to supply labor at agreed-on rates. You’re objecting to contractual agreements as price-fixing.
@HeavenlyPossum @freemo @trinsec , it CAN be price fixing if the companies are required by law to only use union labor, and not freely enter into contracts that say they will only use union labor... But that would require the union to exist everywhere the company can operate. I just don't see any examples of that world wide.
Well no.. all you need is enough people collaborating to artificially tilt the market, it doesnt have to be an exclusive contract.
This is why anti-trust isnt limited to company coalitions that require companies to join (which dont exist anyway)... even just two companies collaborating to fix price is illegal... just as even two people collaborting in a union should be.
Even just two companies of one person each would be in violation of the law if they colluded to price fix together. We have seen examples of this where single-owner businesses on a signle block (in this case on a campus) colluded to price fixed and were found to be acting illegally.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec , sure, this has happened. That doesn't make it immoral. If two guys want $10K for pens, and collude to fix those prices, I will just buy pens on Amazon for $1 each. And this is not immoral. Not my actions, or theirs. "Found that they acted illegally" isn't a good argument to me.
It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with a healthy, functioning economy where everyone benefits.. price fixing destroys economies.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec , and price fixing can only affect a population if there is no competition. This is my morality argument, if it can't force economic effects, then there is nothing immoral in the act. regardless of any other details, like laws.
Correct, and unions usually stubb out competition... In fact in quite a few states you are legally **required** to join a union and in some countries too. In that sense they are 100% effective in eliminating competition as they legally managed to do so.
Even when you arent legally obligated to join the union as a worker have you ever tried getting a job at a unionized workplace without being in the union, even if you are willing to work for half the rate? Chances are you wont even get an interview and if you did all your coworkers would be actively sabotaging you.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec There is no state in the USA where you are legally required to join a union. It can be a condition of employment for a employer, but there is no legal requirement to work for that employer. I have never worked for the UAW, for example. There is no legal requirement for me to join the UAW, in any state. Even though in many places they have contracts giving them exclusive rights to provide labor to auto manufacturers.
Actually there are plenty of states where unions can force employees to join. Ultimately they forced a company into such an agreement which the company is now not able to get out of and is legally obligated to only hire union workers. In some states this is legal, others it is illegal. It is called "right to work" laws.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec
"can force EMPLOYEES to join"
But you can work in a different industry, or work for yourself, or work for a competing firm. And your employer can chose to not sign an exclusive contract, or can choose to sign those exclusive contracts... At least in a free market. Most states limit the market. The problem isn't the unions or the companies in those cases, but cronyism,.
No not always... other companies are unionized too, working for yourself wont help as they wont hire consultants and contractors either outside of the union... When unions are pervasive you dont have those options (much like when companies start to collude to price fix)
“When unions are pervasive you don’t have these options”
So sort of like
“When all economic resources are already privately owned you don’t have these options”
?
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec Why would I try to get a job at 1/2 the pay?
Because you might really like the company, you want the particular position because of your potential for your career, or perhaps because you just cant find any other jobs because they are all union jobs in your area.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec Unions can't stub out the competition. They don't have exclusive rights to schools, and most importantly, humans breeding. The competition will ALWAYS be there. All you need is a couple pornos and a six pack, and there is a stead trickle of new humans. In fact, to many of them.
Have you ever tried to sell to a firm that already has an exclusive contract with a supplier?
I am not claiming that exclusive contracts arent bad... they are... they just arent the only issue nor the issue on the table.
A firm that enters into an exclusive agreement with a supplier of any input can reasonably deny requests by competitors to violate that contract. If the firm violates that contract, the supplier could rightfully have a tort for breach of contract. Why would this be any different for a supplier of labor than for a supplier of toilet paper?
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec If anything, unions drive economic progress... Although I doubt this is true, the numbers show it. Name a strong non-unionized nation in history. Pick a economically powerful non-unionized African nation, or Asian. They just don't exist. Unions signal an economy that is VERY healthy. There are some exceptions... Places where the union is the government... Nazi German comes to mind. Communist China right now. But these are not labor unions. Where independent labor unions exist, the economies are strong. With no exceptions of note.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec Exactly, which is why I said "Although I doubt this is true, the numbers show it. "
The actual reason is that those nations are free market, and unions are a example or indicator of free market economics. No unions, not free markets. Free markets, you get unions.
Quite the opposite, unions make markets less free... Thankfully in most cases they may remain free-enough depending on how pervasive it is.
Take Netherlands as an example (where unions are required and everyone is in one)... There when I was around 20 I would make 1/3 what I make in the USA. Now that I am 40 I make about 1/10th my salary there thatI would in the USA.
You’re describing a function law, not of unions.
Every firm with two or more owners is the functional equivalent of two or more single-proprietor firms colluding to limit market competition. Since the collusion occurs with rather than between firms, it’s perfectly legal.
@HeavenlyPossum @freemo @trinsec I thought about that, but couldn't figure out how to word it. I figured it was best to allude to it with my 'small companies are 50 people or so' comment.
No, you keep trying to sell this idea (and its nonsense) that working together is the same as price fixing.. it isnt. The owners dont control the prices within the company they own, its nonsense. Yes they are collaborating, no they arent price fixing.
If you owned a company and I owned a competing company and we each agreed with each other to set a price for our goods, what would you call that?
@HeavenlyPossum @JonKramer @trinsec
I would call that price-fixing and it is highly illegal.
Now let’s say you and I merged our companies and agreed to set a single price for our goods. What would you call that?
@HeavenlyPossum @JonKramer @trinsec
Much like if two people worked for the same staffing firm and set prices, it would be fine.
So when our capital is separated and we collude, that’s one thing, and when we put our capital next to each other, that’s a different thing?
Sort of.. you pay a penalty to "combine" your capital... youve created a cooperation, so now your double taxed. You also are restricted in your pervasiveness. As described earlier if the corperation has control over a whole niche it will be found illegal and broken up. Also as an individual you dont currently have to compete with companies, you can work with them, as a company you must compete. So i can be on the registry of multiple staffing firms as an individual... as a company im limited and must actually compete with other staffing firms.
So yea you are allowed to combine resources if your willing to take the penalties that come with it.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec those penalties are imposed by law. Once again, you are arguing against big government. And I agree with you, but the issues you raise are almost exclusively because of a lack of free markets. Or the existence of cronyism. Not any advantage of others working under the same system.
Of course, labor union laws are a secondary intervention into the market that are really only necessary to ameliorate the worst effects of the state’s primary intervention that enables the capital class in the first place.
I love the idea that poor little capital owners have such a hard time when they form poor little corporation. It’s a wonder that there are any corporations at all, given all these hardships! And yet
*gestures broadly at the entire world*
When two capital owners agree to form a firm, they’re legally free to collude as much as they want with each other.
Again no they arent. When you form a firm you are significantly restricted in your ability to "collude".. so much so you are isolated from the internal workings of your own company.
So no people who ever owned a firm together ever directed the functioning of their firm together?
https://qoto.org/@freemo/110849729765937024
I have already addressed this several times.
I am going to politely disengage at this point. I have had to repeat myself far too many times and its a good indiciation that a conversation doesnt have much left in it.
That said, thank you for the polite discourse, I enjoyed it.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec Same. It is getting circular, but good points all around.
But last words: YER RONG!!!
@HeavenlyPossum @freemo @trinsec , this argument is strong, and where it diverges from unions is that unions can't keep merging, because the labor market keeps changing. You get 40 years out of a person, tops, and then have to find new mergers, and you have to compete with other labor markets to make those mergers. Endlessly.
It just isn't a level playing field. Labor is easily replaced. It IS replaced.
@freemo @HeavenlyPossum @trinsec , a small company is 50 people maybe? That is considerably different than 2 people. Anti trust doesn't scale DOWN.
Imagine 500 farms trying to sell 100 people oranges. But each farm only produces a single orange. If two of those farmers collude to raise the prices, or fix them, what is the result? They don't sell their oranges. Even if half the farmers price fix, it won't make much of a difference. You need all 500 to fix the prices... and even then, the customers just buy bananas instead. Labor is like orange farmers. There is a vast supply. They can't price fix, unless they get control of the government, and even then the companies are multinational. They just move and buy their labor elsewhere.