๐ณ๐ฑ
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 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.
As far as I see it:
(Big) Companies have a lot of power already. Individual workers have considerably less power. Them working together (and forming an union) protects them against the power of companies. Especially big companies.
You’re talking about antitrust and such, but how does that protect the workers? Will they even bother with the individual workers? A sole worker doesn’t have an army of lawyers behind them to do what is right. An union does.
I only have to look at the USA and see how things are shit for the workers in anti-Union states. How would that get fixed anytime soon? Individual workers can hardly demand improvements like an union can. They just get fired and other victims get hired.
No, somehow I’m really not convinced by your arguments. We’ve already got running examples of what you think should have been, and we can see it’s not really an improvement to those workers there.
(Big) Companies have a lot of power already. Individual workers have considerably less power. Them working together (and forming an union) protects them against the power of companies. Especially big companies.
Actually no, they have far less power than individuals… they cant vote, they get taxed double, they dont have human rights and protections, there is no concept of minimum wage where a company is garunteed to make a minimum amount of money at their venture…. overall large companies have far less rights and powers than individuals.
Youโre talking about antitrust and such, but how does that protect the workers? Will they even bother with the individual workers? A sole worker doesnโt have an army of lawyers behind them to do what is right. An union does.
Antitrust protects the worker because it makes it illegal for companies to “unionize” and fix worker wages. If it werent for anti-trust laws companies could create a coalition and all companies could agree to never pay any of its employees more than minimum wage. Since its a coalition a worker cant just go and quit and work somewhere else, since all companies “unionized” in this scenario and the wage would be the same… It stops wage competition… anti-trust laws make this illegal.
I only have to look at the USA and see how things are shit for the workers in anti-Union states. How would that get fixed anytime soon? Individual workers can hardly demand improvements like an union can. They just get fired and other victims get hired.
There are no “anti-union” states.. unions are legal in all states.
No, somehow Iโm really not convinced by your arguments. Weโve already got running examples of what you think should have been, and we can see itโs not really an improvement to those workers there.
Examples? I know of no place that has what I suggest which is 1) Strong and enforced anti-trust laws 2) Unions are likewise illegal
Unions are currently legal in all states, and anti-trust laws are enforced minimally at best. So no where I know of has these 2 qualities.
@freemo Ah, so your idea is only working with a competent government (which isn’t also short-staffed) which can actually check up all companies to make sure everything’s done fairly?
Yeah.. good luck, heh.
And examples.. well I’ve read about the work conditions of Amazon workers, for example. How can that even exist? It’d not be doable here. Not legally.
I assume that the Amazon warehouse conditions are legal because they’ve been talked about so much, and seemingly haven’t improved.
@trinsec The assumption is that we are obligated to have a competent government… If we assume the government isnt competent then why bother with laws at all.
And examples.. well Iโve read about the work conditions of Amazon workers, for example. How can that even exist? Itโd not be doable here. Not legally.
There are plenty of issues you could find… but again unions are legal in every state so the issues are out of band for this discussion, but agreed they need addressing.
Similarly I couldnt support myself off a Dutch wage, I got paid 1/3 the market value int he netherlands… now its closer to 1/10th… So there are some pretty glaring issues in a highly unionized country too.
@freemo @trinsec While unions are ‘legal’ they are hamstrung in states with “right to work” laws.
You state that businesses don’t vote but they fund Super Pacs that determine who runs. They don’t need to vote. They have economic power that matches or exceeds the political power of the populace.
Unions are an attempt to match the economic power of business.
No matter how much a business donates to a super pac they still cant dictate even a single vote.. the tohousands of employees votes have far more power than ANY amount of money spent on a super pac.. .which by the way is something people can do too (invest tons of money into super pacs)… so very poor argument.
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.
@JonKramer @freemo @trinsec Yeah โ when we see problematic monopolies, I always wonder: why can’t someone else sneak in and undercut? It seems like more often than not the answer is something like “regulatory capture”.
Do we really need antitrust legislation? Or maybe what we need is just less statism?
@JonKramer @freemo @trinsec I’d say the same thing about Unions, too, of course: I think workers negotiating as a bloc (price fixing, essentially) would be totally fine if nothing prevented people from undercutting the bloc. I realize this takes the wind out of the sails of Unions, though. I think this is probably what Freemo means by “You wont have strikes”.
The issue with undercutting has to do with niche “capture”. Basically the barrier to entry to be able to compete is unreasonably high due to control over the whole niche.
Consider the historic example of the gas companies. If a new gas company opened up the mega-corp would just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss, they would also hike the price at all their other stations by a penny sot hey make up costs but dont really effect the cost much elsewhere. Then when the new startup goes out of business they restore the costs in the area to normal.
It effectively would make it completely impossible for small businesses to compete and enter the space. The only way to compete is by forming another megecorp right fromt he getgo, which of course no one could afford to bankroll that out of pocket.
@freemo @JonKramer @trinsec My first reaction to “just undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a loss” is: sounds good to me, problem solved!
I guess there’s an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. But… do we see that much in practice? Megacorps don’t have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.
Maybe what I need to do is a bunch of case studies โ how often are problematic monopolies able to do this without government help?
My first reaction to โjust undercut costs within 50 miles of the new station to rates so low it would operate at a lossโ is: sounds good to me, problem solved!
How does that solve the problem? The company doesnt loose any money, they stay in business, and all new companies are prevented from forming that could possibly compete… what problem is being solved?
I guess thereโs an implicit argument here though that people will be scared away from entering a market dominated by someone with those kinds of economies of scale or whatever. Butโฆ do we see that much in practice? Megacorps donโt have an infinite capacity for scaring off newbies; a loss is a loss.
No its not that anyone will be scared away.. they are 100% garunteed to go out of business no matter how much they undercut. Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?
How does that solve the problem?
IIUC, “the problem” is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily โ you saw my next paragraph…)
Why go into business if it is mathematically garunteed to fail?
That’s what I meant by scared away.
IIUC, โthe problemโ is monopolies charge unnaturally high prices because of lack of competition. If, instead, a monopoly is charging unnaturally low prices and losing money, then that particular problem is gone. yes? (At least temporarily โ you saw my next paragraphโฆ)
Well, no. For starters the problem is that competition cant come into existance. Which in turn leads to higher prices, but also other problems.
Second, this hasnt lowered the price. As stated the monopoly lowers prices within a 50 mile radius but raises prices everywhere else. So the average price hasnt changed, so the problem isnt solved. Moreover the lower price is only temporary, once the company goes out of business then the price is raised and the money made back by an even higher rate. Moreover, knowing competition is garunteed to fail no one even bothers to create said competition in the first place, so the decreased price is never even realized.
Youโre 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. Youโre 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.
@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.
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.
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, itโs perfectly legal.
@freemo @trinsec All strikes are is people refusing to work. If you say "No matter what you do to your employees, those employees are obliged to either accept it or resign (and then be unable to feed their families)" then what you have is slavery.
Incidentally, if you're going to invoke contract enforcement to counter that, when you look into it employment contract law in the UK is utterly toothless. Other than setting wages, employment contracts here are legally barely worth the paper they're written on.
People can refuse to work.. as long as
1) It isnt unionized (done through organized coordination)
2) The company is free to fire you for not coming to work
Since i am mirroring this with anti-trust laws that I support thats like saying "price-fixing is just companies choosing to charge more or pay less".. and like the above example this is true.. and yes companies can set whatever prices they want.. but again they arent allowed to 1) organize with other companies to set prices 2) you are free to buy from competition
@freemo @trinsec But from the workers' point of view, whether the company is gouging its customers by price fixing is irrelevant to how it treats its staff. If the company is telling its workers to work in ways that are unsafe, or it is failing to reward them adequately for their work, why shouldn't they band together to stop it?
You are conflating collective action by people with collective action by companies. The latter is used to extract wealth from customers (people) and give it to legal entities that are not people (companies). The former is the opposite. Since we want wealth in society to sit with people, where it can do some good for them, not in a company's bank account (or their shareholders'), it is reasonable to permit one and forbid the other.
Collective action by workers created weekends, paid holidays, paid maternity care, safety standards for workers and a variety of other benefits. Without it there is nothing to counterbalance the power imbalance between a company and its workers. Companies have huge resources, workers do not, they have to have means for their own protection.
> But from the workers' point of view, whether the company is gouging its customers by price fixing is irrelevant to how it treats its staff.
No its very relevant, because price fixing isnt just something they can do on products but its something they can do on wages as well. Therein lies the problem, it is **very** relevant.
@freemo @trinsec But a) it's not just wages, it's also safety and other conditions and b) it's easy to establish what your competitors' wages are. No collusion is required, it's just supply and demand.
Also c) we aren't talking about entities with equal power. An individual worker generally has essentially no power over their employer to force them to negotiate things in good faith, but must accept what they are given. Only in negotiating collectively does that change, and even then it's still imbalanced, because only strikes give a truly effective lever, and those are a nuclear option.
No one is forced to work against their will, you can quit anytime, you can walk out anytime, you can threaten not to work until your demands are met.. this is all well and good. As long as you dont do it as a union (coordinated and organized).
Same on the anti-trust side.. companies are free to charge higher than market value on any product they want. But the second companies create coalitions and agree to fix the price for all the coalitions mutual benefit, it becomes illegal.
Because once the coverage starts to approach a whole niche you have complete control.
Imagine the extreme of either of these cases, where the vast majority of people and companies decide to collaborate. Price fixing allows you to set unfair prices that prevent competition from undercutting you as you can fix the price locally to beat your competition while raising the price marginally everywhere else to make up your costs. Then when your competition goes out of business you just bring prices higher int he area and recoup your costs again.
It completely prevents competition from arising and thus eliminates any possibility of a free market.
@freemo @trinsec , and yes, I recognize Walmart exists, and your model was their business model, and I know what it did to small towns. My argument is those small town refusing to allow people to just open up businesses without incorporation, taxation, regulations, etc were what allowed Walmart to do it.
Walmart was not the reason for anti-trust laws… anti-trust laws goes back way further.
If you are using refgulation to prevent businesses from opening because they got too big.. then you are implementing an anti-trust law already. But your “fix” doesnt address coalitions, at best that may address single companies getting too large.
No set of laws can fix human brokenness and depravity. No set of laws can even fully describe righteousness. This is analogous to Gรถdels' incompleteness theorem in mathematics. The positive ideal of righteousness is infinite in detail. As the number of laws, even good ones, increases, the ability to follow them as a guide decreases. This is why Paul writes to the Romans that "love is the fulfilling of the law".
This isnt theory, it already happened witht he gas industry and was the reason we needed anti-trust laws. This isnt theory, its history.
@freemo @trinsec Yes, I am aware. But imagine if the competition had been railroads, and electric vehicles, and home hydroelectric power generation? Right now the government requires you to use public services, often owned by private industries, or supplied by private industries. It wouldn’t matter if all the gas industry all ran the market with price fixing, if the people had the choice to not buy from them.
@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.