OMG EU stealing money from teh companies again

[KrazyHorse]

Both unions and cartels attempt to exploit rents from those entry barriers. That's their purpose.

Cartels in industries with high entry barriers tend to be more effective than those in industries with low entry barriers. A cartel of, say, oil refiners would be more effective than a cartel of retail gasoline sellers, because oil refineries are big, expensive and take forever to build, while gas stations are relatively cheap and quick to set up. Similarly, a union of skilled tradespeople who work in an industry with large sunk costs in unmoveable equipment or unshippable goods/services will be far more effective than a union of unskilled workers who produce easily tradeable goods on cheap machines. This is why the UAW was so effective at providing its members with abovemarket wages.

[Asher]

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

And a company with a unionized workforce cannot hire non-union workers.

[BeBMan]

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.

I see, people can simply choose not to buy gas for heating or cooking. Well, technically they can do so, but *very often* it is not a viable option, and *very often* there may not be real alternatives, and you know that very well. In praxis that choice is hardly there for many private consumers, while in praxis many companies can and do get non-organized workers on a regular basis without any problems.

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

And most often it may get labour from elsewhere than the unionized work force, no?

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.

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

Not really, you ****wit.

[BeBMan]

And a company with a unionized workforce cannot hire non-union workers.

Here they can absolutely.

[Kuciwalker]

You have very strange unions, then...

[Asher]

Here they can absolutely.

Then you are clearly talking about something else.

When I worked at a grocery store, I was forced to join the union. The company could not hire non-union workers. I was also then forced to pay union dues...

Unions only work if they're the only source of labour for the company.

[BeBMan]

You have very strange unions, then...

Well originally here everything the unions negotiated was meant to have an effect for all companies of a certain branch, regardless if the workers were in the union or not. If that were still the case, I'd agree with the 'monopoly' point. But it changed during the last 15-20 years a lot.

[Asher]

Well originally here everything the unions negotiated was meant to have an effect for all companies of a certain branch, regardless if the workers were in the union or not. If that were still the case, I'd agree with the 'monopoly' point. But it changed during the last 15-20 years a lot.

If that's true, that's not how unions work in the rest of the world.

They monopolize the labour source and jack the prices. Just like a cartel.

[KrazyHorse]

I see, people can simply choose not to buy gas for heating or cooking.

Just like companies can choose not to hire machinists to build the parts for the products they sell.

Twit.

In praxis that choice is hardly there for many private consumers, while in praxis many companies can and do get non-organized workers on a regular basis without any problems.

I have no idea what "praxis" means.

If it was easy to hire a non-union worker to do jobs that unionized workers do then why the **** would companies hire unionized workers then? What the **** would the point of a union be? This is a ****ing retarded assertion. Labour is not some ****ing fungible commodity.The labour market is segmented both by skill and location. Some segments are strongly unionized and companies DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. By the way, a segment can be AS SPECIFIC AS A SINGLE TYPE OF JOB IN A SPECIFIC FIRM.

And most often it may get labour from elsewhere than the unionized work force, no?

No, you twit. There are HUGE ENTRY BARRIERS TO NEW LABOUR.

According to your version of the labour market unions don't actually have any ****ing negotiating power and are thus absolutely meaningless.

[KrazyHorse]

Well originally here everything the unions negotiated was meant to have an effect for all companies of a certain branch, regardless if the workers were in the union or not. If that were still the case, I'd agree with the 'monopoly' point. But it changed during the last 15-20 years a lot.

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the point at hand.

Unions having a legal right to exclude non-union competition is NOT what makes them like a cartel. Cartels don't have the legal right to enforce their cartel, but they are still cartels. Cartels are VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS OF SUPPLIERS. Even insofar as a union is merely a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION OF LABOUR SUPPLIERS it is still a cartel.

[BeBMan]

I see, you want to tell me how things run in Germany, great. Well, you're the expert for that I guess, so I stand corrected. Now you just need to tell the companies here that they're all doing it wrong over decades.

And just curious, is just 'twit' better than '****wit'?

[Saras]

What is the unemployment rate for under-25s in France again?

[KrazyHorse]

BeBro, you're a twit because your version of the labour market and unionization leads inexorably to the conclusion that unions are ABSOLUTELY INEFFECTIVE AT ALTERING WORKER PAY AT ALL.

If there was a vast supply of unused, ununionized labour that companies could tap then the union would be wholly unable to affect pay (or hours or benefits etc).

The fact is that unions are only effective when they manage to capture a significant fraction of the labour supply for a specific type of job. They can only do this when there are barriers to entry by new labour into that type of job, whether it be skill, location or legal barriers. Similarly, cartels are only effective when they capture much/most of the market for their product, and they can only do this when there are significant barriers to entry by new producers.

The two organizations are IDENTICAL in terms of their purpose and the means they employ to achieve this purpose. They attempt to increase the price paid to suppliers by means of an agreement between suppliers

[BeBMan]

BeBro, you're a twit because your version of the labour market and unionization leads inexorably to the conclusion that unions are ABSOLUTELY INEFFECTIVE AT ALTERING WORKER PAY AT ALL.

And you're a twit because you ignore that exactly this is the reality here. Unions have complained over and over that everything changed under the motto of 'liberalising the labour market' in the years after 1990 did errode their power vs. companies indeed (which companies deny).

You simply do know nothing about the situation in krautland but insist it is the same as in Canada. Well, it isn't.

[Asher]

BeBro, no one cares about Germany and no one is talking about Germany but you.