OMG EU stealing money from teh companies again

[Kuciwalker]

Don't talk uninformed crap.

It's an important right in and of itself- gaining a legal right to strike -along with other legal rights such as forming a union, holding a union meeting and so on- were all important steps for workers and unions.

All of those are important rights because they are useful means to an end

Would the right to form a union be valuable if it then was never exercised to actually bargain for a better deal for workers?

Sick pay and holiday pay are forms of COMPENSATION ?

Yes

If sick pay and holiday pay were not legal rights (which they weren't at the time unions originated) and were part of a union-negotiated contract, they would be considered 'consideration' on the part of the company.

Since they would involve some amount of loss on the part of the company and gain on the part of the employees, how could you not consider it compensation? Compensation need not be in currency or even in kind.

Oh, so nothing to do with gaining equal rights, equality of opportunity, ensuring laws are complied with. You really don't have a clue, do you ?

Workers were harassed and discriminated against primarily to prevent them from engaging in collective bargaining (i.e. forming a union). Preventing other kinds of legal [at the time] harassment are all, again, isomoprhic to compensation.

I'd say it's fairly clear what you know and what you don't know about the origin of unions, their purpose and their history. Come back when you have a few facts to back up the opinions.

I have presented facts and even presented arguments to explain why those facts are actually relevant you have done neither.

The reason you couldn't 'name-drop' either the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire or the Matchgirls' Strike is, I suspect, you certainly won't have heard of the latter, and even if you have heard of the former, you seem unable to understand (given your previous posts) the importance of it to the history of the unions in the United States.

Neither do you, as you've still not actually presented any facts. The only thing the uninformed observer could deduce from your 'citation' is that there were two historical events, the 'Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire' and the 'Matchgirls' strike', that have some relation to unions. You have not presented any argument why they are relevant to the disucssion, and you have not presented any argument why they support your side. You have done nothing but mention them by name.

You are a terrible historian.

No, you're just making assertions, not backed up by reference to either trades' disputes or legislation regarding unions, or historical events.

I cited both the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust acts and the historical relation of the latter to the former

a big blurb about the Radium corporation

A corporation in times past did something evil and almost certainly illegal for financial gain! Welcome to the world of things everyone already knew. Explain how this refutes the assertion that a union's central purpose is to engage in collective bargaining to increase workers' compensation, defined as anything that, were it not legally required, would be counted as consideration from the company to the workers in a contract

I will concede that unions also branched out into political lobbying to legislate increased compensation

[Kuciwalker]

doublepost

[Spiffor]

Huh? Are you saying people (by which I assume you mean the general public at large) don't get to choose winners and losers in the market?

Yes they do.

However, the very way the competition occurs in the market follows a strct logic that remains the same. It's all about price and utility. Choosing the most adept company in this game doesn't alter the rules of the game in any way.

[KrazyHorse]

So you think that the market maximizes utility? Even I wouldn't go that far...

[Spiffor]

I'm meaning the former. A government agency contracting with sector.
And are less bad than pure regulation when it comes to red tape. In this regard, it's better for the state to pay the private sector to do stuff, than to try to force the private to do what the state wants.
In both cases, I consider the red tape to be excessive. If the state (or whatever layer of government) wants to do something right, it ought to do it itself.

It's harder to, for example, have the FDA regulate food safety than to nationalize the entire agricultural sector?

Seeing how terrible your food is, that's definitely a good idea

More seriously, I must admit "touché".

So you're saying that companies today are trying to outsource parts of their business that cannot be efficiently outsourced? Why wouldn't the market then punish these companies appropriately? Why would the government be better than these companies at deciding which functions can be efficiently outsourced?

1) In many cases, yes
2) In many of those cases, they end up understanding they were wong. But that's after the organization that used to work, had been thoroughly destroyed.
Besides, "the market" doesn't really punish those companies, if there's little competition in a specific field. I won't detail you all the failures at producing a purely competitive market, I'm sure you know them better than I do.
3) The govt is possibly even less adept at acknowledging its mistakes as a company's uper management. That's because mismanagement tends not to have drastic consequences for the people involved in the public sector.

More accurately "keep myself in power"
That's basic, but it works pretty well.

So basically the CEO of State Industry, Inc., has the sole motivation "convince the voters they shouldn't remove me from my post".

Not quite. CEOs (and upper management : at least in France, all high execs must be kosher in the eyes of the govt) will want to remain in power or progress in their career, just like any ambitious people.
But typically, high ranking people in the public sector join the public service because they have an idea of a general interest (more often than not, I disagree with said ideas of theirs). Being in charge of a state company grants them power to turn their ideas into a reality.

Why does this incentive result in a more efficient business than "maximize the difference between expenses and income"?

You don't understand. I'm not saying state companies are more efficient businesses than the private sector. What they're better at, is providing goods and services in a specific way that is alien to the market, and thus the very reason why they're a public company in the first place.

There are two possibilities: first, perhaps mass transit shouldn't be provided in low-density areas. It's plausible that the total costs outweigh the total benefits. Second, mass transit could provide a positive externality. In that case, why not just provide a subsidy to private mass transit equal to the value of the externality?

Well, tell me how you calculate it
Externalities are a tricky business to calculate. I'm quite unconvinced by the attempts of calculation I've seen (such as the guy who says an extra car in Manhattan has a negative externality of $600).
This is why there's a strong need for politics when it comes to the public good. Because the public good can't be quantified by some "neuter" regulation agency.

[Spiffor]

So you think that the market maximizes utility? Even I wouldn't go that far...

For individuals who can afford what they want, yes. If you take into account the utility that is already modified by advertising.

The market doesn't maximizes the world's utility, as it strips many, many people from bare necessities, essential for basic human dignity. And only because wealth unequalities are completely alien to the market's logics.

[KrazyHorse]

So why don't we just redistribute money?

[KrazyHorse]

such as the guy who says an extra car in Manhattan has a negative externality of $600

The figure I've heard is that 1 extra car in Manhattan below 60th street causes, on the average weekday rush hour ~150$ worth of delays for other drivers.

And, frankly, I believe that.

[Ramo]

Congestion taxes. They appear to have worked well in London.

So why don't we just redistribute money?

In practice, that doesn't happen without a political organization that can foster that kind of policy. Unions are an integral part of that coalition. There's a strong correlation between the union density of a society and its social safety nets.

[KrazyHorse]

a) That's a facile, silly analysis, Ramo
b) I'm not willing to live with the rent-seeking wealth-destroying behaviour of unions just so that they can act as a political force for redistribution

[Kuciwalker]

2) In many of those cases, they end up understanding they were wong. But that's after the organization that used to work, had been thoroughly destroyed.
Besides, "the market" doesn't really punish those companies, if there's little competition in a specific field. I won't detail you all the failures at producing a purely competitive market, I'm sure you know them better than I do.

Fair.

3) The govt is possibly even less adept at acknowledging its mistakes as a company's uper management. That's because mismanagement tends not to have drastic consequences for the people involved in the public sector.

This is the main thrust of my argument.

Not quite. CEOs (and upper management : at least in France, all high execs must be kosher in the eyes of the govt) will want to remain in power or progress in their career, just like any ambitious people.
But typically, high ranking people in the public sector join the public service because they have an idea of a general interest (more often than not, I disagree with said ideas of theirs). Being in charge of a state company grants them power to turn their ideas into a reality.

OK. What ensures these ideas conform to the actual public interest? (As it differs from "what makes the voters content".)

You don't understand. I'm not saying state companies are more efficient businesses than the private sector. What they're better at, is providing goods and services in a specific way that is alien to the market, and thus the very reason why they're a public company in the first place.

Would it be impossible to subsidize private industry so that it provides goods in services in this way?

Well, tell me how you calculate it
Externalities are a tricky business to calculate. I'm quite unconvinced by the attempts of calculation I've seen (such as the guy who says an extra car in Manhattan has a negative externality of $600).
This is why there's a strong need for politics when it comes to the public good. Because the public good can't be quantified by some "neuter" regulation agency.

You have the government accountants or w/e do the best they can with the information available. To not do that is to assume the externality is $0.

[KrazyHorse]

Spiffy, why the **** do we WANT the government to provide goods and services in a different way than the market?

You're going to claim that pricing externalities is more difficult than actually running entire sectors of the economy centrally? That's laughable.

[Ramo]

a) That's a facile, silly analysis, Ramo
b) I'm not willing to live with the rent-seeking wealth-destroying behaviour of unions just so that they can act as a political force for redistribution

a. I didn't say that it's more than a correlation. But it is striking that the US is basically unique both in terms of the weakness of its safety net and its union density among the developed world.
b. It also helps to function as a safety net in the absence of state action. But I am, absent a more empirical argument.

[KrazyHorse]

Unions also act as political forces for things like trade and immigration barriers.

And since the average union worker already makes more than the average non-union worker you can forgive me for thinking that they're not to be trusted to push for redistribution to the people who need it most...

[Ramo]

Not really the case with the unions that are ascending - the SEIU, etc. Mean wages are pretty low (low barriers to entry in the service sector imply that their bargaining ability is substantially lower) and they're pro-immigration. You're right on trade, but clearly their power to affect the political consensus on this issue is very weak. The most substantial trade barriers we have (agrisubsidies) have ****all to do with union lobbying.