OMG EU stealing money from teh companies again

[Kuciwalker]

It is mind-boggling that you represent unions and yet don't understand their purpose.

[Kuciwalker]

One of the first applications of the original antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act, was to break up a railway union as a 'conspiracy in restraint of trade'. It wasn't until the Clayton Antitrust Act that unions were granted an explicit exemption from the ban on price fixing.

[DaShi]

WHAT DO YOU THINK A SALARY IS BUT THE PRICE OF LABOR.

You just said that the purpose of a union is to negotiate salaries, i.e. all the workers get together and agree "we are not going to sell our labor for less than $N/hour". This is price fixing as much as a group of companies getting together and agreeing "we are not going to sell our stuff for less than $N/widget".

If a corporation is a band of businessmen and a union is a band of employees, wouldn't a better analogy to cartels consist of a group of unions getting together to set prices?

[molly bloom]

1) THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF A UNION. TO FIX PRICES.

So nothing to do with gaining the right to strike, holiday pay, sick pay, protecting members from harassment or discrimination, ensuring health and safety legislation at work is followed, promoting the training and education of union members ....?


Odd, because from my knowledge of the history of trade unions, all those things are (and have been) in the remit of various unions and workers' associations.


Oh, to have never heard of the Matchgirls' Strike or the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.

It is mind-boggling that you represent unions and yet don't understand their purpose.

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

[Asher]

It is mind-boggling that you represent unions and yet don't understand their purpose.

If he did, why would he represent them?

[Asher]

If a corporation is a band of businessmen and a union is a band of employees, wouldn't a better analogy to cartels consist of a group of unions getting together to set prices?

A corporation is not a band of businessmen. It's a bunch of people who follow the direction of the executives, or quit if they don't like it.

That should include the labour and other lower-forms of unionized workers.

The direct analogy to a workers union is a corporate cartel or oligopoly.

Both are harmful to consumers. One is culturally acceptable because it benefits a lot of voters.

[DaShi]

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).

[Asher]

So nothing to do with gaining the right to strike

The right to strike? What for? Oh, to fix their prices.

holiday pay

Government mandates.

sick pay

Yep. This is a good one. The reason the garbage isn't being picked up in Toronto for nearly a month now revolves around this. It is a terrific system/scam they had going. The city workers (including court clerks, etc) got 18 sick days per year. Which if they were not used, could be banked and carried forward to the next year. It's possible to work for only 13 months and be eligible for 36 days of vacation sick leave! If you work for the city for life, like many people do, you could take almost two years off on "sick leave", or take the equivalent of it by "cashing them out" for a bonus almost equivalent to two years pay!

And then in a climate where tons of people are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet, these *******s decide to STRIKE and leave courts in chaos and garbage on the street because the City is not going to give them 18 sick days per year that they can carry forward anymore. the nerve! The city wants to replace it with a short-term disability plan and an immediate payout of six months' salary upon retirement (which is still ridiculous), and the union STILL DOESN'T WANT IT and is striking.

They're petulant children holding the city hostage.

protecting members from harassment or discrimination

That's what the police are for.

ensuring health and safety legislation at work is followed

There are government organizations that do exactly this. They investigate any and all workplace incidents, for example.

promoting the training and education of union members ....?

That's the responsibility of the company, and it's in their best interest also.

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

It's not mind-boggling to me. I already know you're a bunch of hot air, but it is good to see you back at what you do best.

[Asher]

My point is that corporations consist of individuals (executives, shareholders, and such), as do unions (workers).

The problem here is that executives, shareholders, etc do not act as one entity. Unions do.

You need to abstract one level farther out. When companies collaborate to fix prices, they work together as one entity to negate competition in the market. When unionized workers collaborate to fix prices, they work together as one entity to negate competition in their market.

When there's no competition, you can get away with murder. You can rape consumers on pricing and features (cartel/oligopoly), or you could give absurd incentives and benefits not indicative of the value of the worker (unions).

They are directly comparable with identical results.

[BeBMan]

Nice selective quoting.

[Asher]

Nice selective quoting.

If the premise is wrong, what follows is not worth discussion. Expediency and efficiency, you Germans used to be good at it...

[RGBVideo]

WHAT DO YOU THINK A SALARY IS BUT THE PRICE OF LABOR.

You just said that the purpose of a union is to negotiate salaries, i.e. all the workers get together and agree "we are not going to sell our labor for less than $N/hour". This is price fixing as much as a group of companies getting together and agreeing "we are not going to sell our stuff for less than $N/widget".

It's doublespeak. If you start using the same words for the two things, their users might understand that they are fundamentally the same thing. This would result in a loss of moral superiority and not enforcing different standards for unions/corporations as dogma.

[BeBMan]

If the premise

This is fundamentally wrong, cuz it's no FACT. What follows is not worth discussion.

[DaShi]

The problem here is that executives, shareholders, etc do not act as one entity.

What is a corporation?

You need to abstract one level farther out. When companies collaborate to fix prices, they work together as one entity to negate competition in the market. When unionized workers collaborate to fix prices, they work together as one entity to negate competition in their market.

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

When there's no competition, you can get away with murder. You can rape consumers on pricing and features (cartel/oligopoly), or you could give absurd incentives and benefits not indicative of the value of the worker (unions).

They are directly comparable with identical results.

Not really. There are far more nuances between the corporation and union relationship than between cartels and consumers that break the analogy. Cartels give consumers no opportunity to negotiate, while corporations can negotiate with unions to form reasonable demands. Ideally, the situation between the corporation and the union should be equal to achieve the fairest result. However, if one side is too strong or too weak, then it is unbalanced. The workers become overworked and underpaid or they become corrupt and lazy. There is no relationship like this between cartels and consumers.

[Asher]

This is fundamentally wrong, cuz it's no FACT. What follows is not worth discussion.

FACT: If the premise...