You going to expound on how I'm wrong or is this just going to be one of those "Neener, neener" drive attacks?
Originally Posted by pjorourke
No you misunderstood what I was saying. Unions create a monopoly for labor within a company -- essentially they prevent others from accepting a wage offer from a company that the union doesn't approve -- less so in right to work states, although there is always intimidation.
Originally Posted by pjorourke
P.J.,
This is what happens when you try to deal with complicated subjects by using labels and catch phrases.
You already made the qualification that in right-to-work states your definition of "monopoly" does not apply, but more importantly, the description of unions as monopolies misses the point on several levels. Businesses don't want to individually negotiate workers' contracts, but they do want to have a take it or leave it arrangement. So it was the judgment of Congress that workers have the right to collectively organize to balance this equation. Congress also gave workers the right to strike (withholding services) as a means of putting economic pressure on management. But despite the loss of the right to individually negotiate a contract, workers must still ratify contracts and in that sense they choose whether they want to accept the terms of employment.
But your syllogism also goes awry by suggesting that monopolies are considered bad in business. Your are right, to a point. It seems pretty basic that every self-respecting company wants the legally acceptable equivalent of monopoly: a dominant market share. Every business wants to have the overwhelming economic power to force its customers and suppliers to accept its terms as there are no other realistic options. So at some level, a monopolistic position is desirable, unless you are on the other side of the equation.
If you want to see a real quasi-monopoly, look at Wal-Mart. If you speak to anyone who deals with it, you will learn that it wields a very big economic stick when it negotiates with vendors. The threat that Wal-Mart won't deal with you is really intimidating to many businesses. The result is that Wal-Mart customers get better prices but the vendors have reduced earnings for their shareholders.
But if we agree that monopolies are bad, then don't we have to look sharply at those situations where businesses have a monopoly over the labor market in areas with high unemployment or in company towns? Take for example the mining industry in West Virginia. If the mining companies are the only "game in town" don't they have a monopolistic position in the labor market and isn't that a bad thing?
In April more than a score of miners were killed in an explosion at the Upper Big Bend Mine in West Virginia. The mine's owner, Massey Energy Co., has a long history of safety violations. Massey's monopolistic position as the biggest employer in the region seems to have allowed it to flaunt the law and the workers and their union didn't have the economic wherewithal to complain. As a result 25 husbands, fathers and sons died.
I could go on, but what's the point? I suspect you will still be reflexively anti-union no matter what I or anyone else says. Unions are imperfect institutions. Big Business and Wall Street are imperfect institutions. But those imperfections don't justify wholesale condemnations laced with hot button phrases borrowed from the "freedom of choice" or "free market" economy camps. But pundits like buzz words and abhor nuance.
I will repeat what I said earlier. I deal with unions on a regular basis. They are often an irritant, but on balance I think they serve useful purposes. Their survival will be based on how well they adapt, but we all know that.
Is this pointed enough for you?