OMG EU stealing money from teh companies again

[BeBMan]

Adding fact after the fact means it's not a real fact. FACT.

[Asher]

What is a corporation?

My argument is that cartels and unions are different entities. Basically, that the entire analogy is bunk.

But they are. You are getting bogged down in the details. Of course they are different entities, but they share the same purpose and results. They are both defined as:

A group of BLANK collaborating to ensure the price of their product/service is maximal.

On that basic level, they are one and the same. A group of phone companies fixing their minimum prices to ensure maximum profit for them is no different than a group of phone company employees fixing their minimum prices to ensure maximum profit for them. Both ensure there's no competition in their market and inflate their prices.

If a company is part of a cartel controlling the supply of a product, I can't go buy the product elsewhere for cheaper.
If a union is controlling the supply of labour for a company, I can't go buy the labour for cheaper (thus offshoring )

[BeBMan]

But unions don't 'control' stuff in the same way as cartels do, at least not in large segments of the market. When negotiating the 'price' it's not simply the unions that tell how high/low it is, it's negotiated between unions and companies, unless it works totally different in the US/CAN. A cartel fixing prices for goods has only companies negotiating the price, and all sides here usually have similar interests, while in negotiations unions vs. companies they usually have opposite interests.

[Sava]

It is more mind-boggling that anyone (supposedly educated) can spout such callow uninformed drivel.

American schools focus more on science and math. When it comes to history, politics, philosophy of law and such, the emphasis is more on memorization versus understanding concepts. Plus, students are taught to seek approval rather than think critically.

So give Kuci a gold star for trying. That will improve his attitude.

[KrazyHorse]

A cartel fixing prices for goods has only companies negotiating the price

A supplier cartel STILL HAS TO "NEGOTIATE" WITH THE CONSUMER BY SELLING TO HIM.

[Asher]

But unions don't 'control' stuff in the same way as cartels do, at least not in large segments of the market. When negotiating the 'price' it's not simply the unions that tell what how high/low it is, it's negotiated between unions and companies, unless it works totally different in the US/CAN. A cartel fixing prices for goods has only companies negotiating the price, and all sides here usually have similar interests, while in negotiations unions vs. companies they usually have opposite interests.

The problem is it's not fair-minded negotiation. The union has tremendous leverage in that unless the company does what it says, it can bring the company down. That's why you have the UAW and CAW unions with absolutely ridiculous benefits and wages which, in the end, did bring many companies down.

You act like it's a bunch of people sitting down and reaching a fair agreement. That's not what happens. The union sits down and twists the arm of the company until it's about to break, then it relents and gives into union demands.

That's precisely why you get systems like the Toronto City Workers...with 18 bankable sick days per year and an average wage well, well above what the going rate is in the private sector. It's also why the City is hemorrhaging money, which is ultimately coming out of my paycheque...even when the City makes offers that are outstanding -- and provide certainly far better benefits than I get at my job -- the union does not agree to it. Why? Because the garbage sitting on the city streets is becoming a health hazard. They know the longer they wait the more desperate the city will become, caving to their demands.

Plus what KH said...

[KrazyHorse]

American schools focus more on science and math. When it comes to history, politics, philosophy of law and such, the emphasis is more on memorization versus understanding concepts. Plus, students are taught to seek approval rather than think critically.

So give Kuci a gold star for trying. That will improve his attitude.

Sava, I find it incredibly amusing that you're insulting Kuci's ability to think critically.

[KrazyHorse]

As far as the analogy between firms and cartels/unions goes, there is some validity to it.

Legally, the difference between a cartel/union and a firm is that corporations have legal personhood in a number of respects in (at least) NA and the UK.

Practically, there are a couple of differences:

a) I can be a part owner of a corporation and choose to compete directly with that corporation. If I own stock in Bank of America it doesn't prevent me from opening my own bank, or indeed from owning stock in a different bank. On the other hand, I can't belong to a union and sell my labour partly via the union and partly outside the union to the same company and in the same type of job. Similarly, a cartel doesn't allow its members to cheat by running parallel competition. If it did then there would be no point to the cartel.

b) There are valid efficiency reasons for the existence of corporations. It would be impractical to run certain enterprises as a freely associated group of small producers working at piece rates, for example. The pieces might be untradeable or otherwise difficult to value. Financing for large firms may be easier or cheaper to obtain. There might be other economies of scale. On the other hand, a union or cartel serves primarily as a means to increase the negotiating power of one side relative to the other.

[Kuciwalker]

So nothing to do with gaining the right to strike,

That's only a means to an end - the end of improving their negotiating position in order to negotiate higher salaries.

holiday pay, sick pay,

Falls under salary, as it's a form of compensation.

protecting members from harassment or discrimination,

Means to the end.

ensuring health and safety legislation at work is followed, promoting the training and education of union members ....?

At the origin of unions, there was no OSHA, and so improved safety is essentially another form of compensation. Goes in the salary bin.

[Kuciwalker]

My point is that corporations consist of individuals (executives, shareholders, and such), as do unions (workers). However, cartels consist of groups rather than individuals. Thus, the proper analogy to cartels should be groups of unions working together to fix wages (this is not unheard of).

...

If a corporation consisted of ALL of the executives in an industry (i.e. there were no other companies in the industry, i.e. the corporation is the sole provider of a particular good) then it would be by definition a monopoly and would be subject to antitrust. It's quite common that a union consists of ALL of the laborers in an industry (i.e. the union is the sole provider of a particular service) at least within a geographic region.

The two are the same thing. "conspiracy in restraint of trade"
conspiracy - group of 2 or more people [/entities] organized to a common goal
restraint of trade - they are attempting to prevent free trade by monopolizing a good or service

[DaShi]

But they are. You are getting bogged down in the details. Of course they are different entities, but they share the same purpose and results. They are both defined as:

A group of BLANK collaborating to ensure the price of their product/service is maximal.

On that basic level, they are one and the same. A group of phone companies fixing their minimum prices to ensure maximum profit for them is no different than a group of phone company employees fixing their minimum prices to ensure maximum profit for them. Both ensure there's no competition in their market and inflate their prices.

If a company is part of a cartel controlling the supply of a product, I can't go buy the product elsewhere for cheaper.
If a union is controlling the supply of labour for a company, I can't go buy the labour for cheaper (thus offshoring )

That's reasonable.

[BeBMan]

A cartel fixing prices for goods has only companies negotiating the price

A supplier cartel STILL HAS TO "NEGOTIATE" WITH THE CONSUMER BY SELLING TO HIM.

The funny thing of the cartel is that the consumer usually has hardly a choice if anything is controlled by the cartel. Large parts of the economy however can still hire people not organized in unions, at least that's how it works here. It may be different in certain segments for example with a highly specialised workforce, but then I actually noted this before.

But nice selective quoting #2.

[Kuciwalker]

Sava, I find it incredibly amusing that you're insulting Kuci's ability to think critically.

What I love about it is that I'm the only person in the thread to cite historical information in some kind of argument (as opposed to just name-dropping it), and I'm also the only person to have applied the critical reasoning to it of the form "antitrust law used to ban unions; Congress amended the law to explicitly exclude unions; therefore they must recognize that union are a form of monopoly".

[Kuciwalker]

Defenders of unions would do much better to not deny the obvious (unions are a form of monopoly) and instead engage on legitimate points, e.g. they are necessary to counter the immense disparity in bargaining position between employers and employees. In other words, they would do better to use the actual historical arguments for unions.

[KrazyHorse]

The funny thing of the cartel is that the consumer usually has hardly a choice if anything is controlled by the cartel.

Yes, they do:THEY CAN CHOOSE NOT TO CONSUME THE PRODUCT.

Just like a company faced with union demands can basically only choose not to consume the product that the union is selling: its labour.

Large parts of the economy however can still hire people not organized in unions, at least that's how it works here.

And I can buy products not produced by a cartel. The reason that neither of those statements is full protection against my loss of negotiating power is the same: that there are entry barriers. If a company has to hire an entirely new workforce then there are going to be significant costs involved. Just like it takes time and money to start a new company which can supply the product that a cartel controls.

But nice selective quoting #2.

There's no selective quoting, you ****wit. You're simply making blatantly false statements that I'm refuting.