🇳🇱
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 Ah, a second way to view it:
You argue that workers should not be able to control the price point of their work.
Well, if they cannot control this very thing they can sell, why would anyone get to own a lot more than that (a whole company), including the right to control how much is payed to workers?
If the answer is "because it is like that", we are in "right of the strongest" territory, and any union effort, even if it turns the whole society upside down, would have the same ethical validity.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo What is Freemo saying that sounds like arguing "that workers should not be able to control the price point of their work"?
@ech Right, it seems @admitsWrongIfProven is reducing my statement to something I didnt say (a typical tactic)...
Of course workers can control the price point of their work. This is easily provable by the tons of non-union jobs out there that are well paid (like programming).. Unions arent needed to negotiate good wages en masse. The issue with unions is that it is price fixing which is not the same as being to set your own price point.
"control the price point of their work" is not the same as "price fixing".
Controlling the price of your work is what you do when no unions exist and you decide what price point you will work at and reject jobs below that point, and accept jobs above it.. This is controlling what price you work at but it is **not** price fixing.
Price fixing is where you manipulate the market to get a price that is contrary to market value but controlling all or most of the thing being priced. Unions artificially coordinating to raise their salary beyond the market value by creating artificial scarcity (striking) is price fixing.
The same is true of companies. Individual companies choosing to sell a product at whatever price they want is not price fixing, that is just controlling the price they are willing to accept.. When companies create coalitions and all agree to a fixed price regardless of market pressures to artificially inflate a price (and create artificial scarcity) then that is price fixing.
@freemo @ech Ok, now that's a good faith answer, thank you.
I would point out that price fixing in the known sense directly benefits those that do it.
It would make no sense for unions to price fix in the same manner, since they cannot profit - or do you see a realistic way to profit there?
After all, a workers union (where the workers have say!) must keep production for the goods the workers need up. It is of direct interest to the workers that this happens, otherwise high wages would only lead to inedible money, no food. So the only thing that might be affected were goods that... have no use? Why would we want those?
So, in short, artificial shortages (no matter of labor or goods) profit companies as an entity, maybe owners (due to methods of procurement outside of "go to the supermarket"), but never workers.
> It would make no sense for unions to price fix in the same manner, since they cannot profit - or do you see a realistic way to profit there?
Yes unions profit, or at least their members do. When they price-fix their salary they make more money through artificial scarcity (striking).. So yes it makes perfect sense for unions to price fix, and yes they profit from it. In fact most of the point of a union is to price-fix (or when not fixing price they are fixing it with other things of similar value like benefits).
So yes artificial scarcity of workers absolutely benefits workers. You need to realize to a company the "product" being priced are things, to unions the product being priced is the labour and the price is their salary + benefits.
Didnt ignore it, just not relevant. Since price-fixing isnt allowed through anti-trust mechanisms, in the same manner unions wouldnt be allowed, this balances the price on both side. The company will want to sell the product and if people cant afford it they lower the price until the cost of production and demand reach a balance. So no problem reached there.
Now in an economy where you pay for value that means you do of course need to provide value. A company cant sell a 0-value product and expect to make money any more than a worker can expect to make money with 0-value to offer (no skills).
The answer therefore is assisting both companies and people in ensuring they provide value and thus can be successful.. For people that would involve a combination of welfare and free education... for companies it means none of the usual price fixing (like minimum wage or unions) to ensure companies can hire people who can make quality products at their value-appropriate price.
@freemo @ech You are arguing by rules, not reality. The rules you cite were not made with the specific thing you mean (unions could theoretically price fix) in mind, they do not apply precisely because of what i brought up. If you ignore the logic error of someone price fixing the very thing they need themself, you are shutting your mind to reality.
I also doubt the balance you speak of because it is an ideal construction, not what happens in real life. People do pay for non-value. Be it cunning manipulation, power imbalance, the system is too complex to nail it down to one thing clearly. What is clear is that not all, not even most people act rationally. A well-known problem in game theory. People don't just stop paying if your provided value is missing. If you don't think so, explain collectable (non-antique) stuff.
No this isnt theory, this is reality.
Unions price fix **in reality** it is intentional and their stated purpose. This isnt theory or rules. The purpose of a union is to create a coalition and to use that collective bargaining power to price-fix their salary and other benefits. Calling that theory is absurd, its literally the stated purpose.
How would that cut off their own supply.. they fix an unreasonable price, make a ton more money as a result, company keeps producing goods but just sells the goods at a much higher price. Inflation goes haywire, you have total economic collapse long term, but short term pressures the employees think they are doing great, afterall they are paid a fortune.
@freemo @ech If the price is truly unreasonable, the industry dies because nobody can afford it. Not even the workers with unreasonable wages. That's the point.
If companies fix prices, people get less. A power struggle to change the distribution of wealth.
So if all the workers join in, an individual worker gets no more than the fair share - there is nothing to unfairly distribute if the workers are not exploited!
I suspect you argue from the perspective of someone who has more than a fair share... only then is this a bad thing: no actual value produced, then one is a looser in this.
(And yeah, i would have to switch jobs too ^^)
> If the price is truly unreasonable, the industry dies because nobody can afford it. Not even the workers with unreasonable wages. That's the point.
This only works in a non-price fixed market.. with price fixing there is no such thing as unreasonable price since im able to force people to pay whatever I want.. thats why inflation forces kick in rather than market forces.
> I suspect you argue from the perspective of someone who has more than a fair share... only then is this a bad thing: no actual value produced, then one is a looser in this.
I grew up in the worst sort of poverty imaginable. I argue fromt he perspective of someone who has expiernced the hardship and learned what it takes to address it.
Now you are getting it.. its because money doesnt define wealth.. When people take an unfair share through price-fixing then while it looks like they are taking more because they have more dollars and cents in reality the runaway inflation that results means you actually have less but are tricked into thinking you have more.
@freemo @ech I see no difference here. If enough people are set to not do the thing (whatever useful thing that is), everything collapses. Can happen, is not in the interest of people, but no way around that risk. Can't force people to perform.
The thing would be to enforce general unionization - get everyone some backup and organization to defend their rights to a fair compensation. Consequently, the best paying jobs would be the most useful - best bargaining power.
Only losers would be people that do something that is not useful at all (unions don't work if what is done is not needed). To those i would say: i support a livable universal basic income, if what you do is not useful you're covered. Please stop calling a non-useful thing a "job".
@freemo @ech You conveniently ignored the part about workers needing the goods produced, they cannot stop the production completely.
Or are you in fact suggesting they eat money? Owners might get rich enough to buy very expensive food, have goods handcrafted or sourced in a way workers could never afford, even with price fixing. The alternative would be that every worker became a millionaire - unrealistic.