🇳🇱
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 @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
> 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.
@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.