I think you're painting with too broad of a brush and stereotyping all corporations based on the actions of some that have made the news.
Union Membership Shrinks Again in 2016
- Thread starter DSmith21
- Start date
How is RTW not collusion? It is the government and business owners colluding to eliminate labor's ability to collectively bargain.
And the alternative is working at Wal-Mart. Where they force you to work off the clock to keep your hours just low enough to avoid paying you benefits. Would your mom rather that?
Labor only has the right to collectively bargain because they legalized their ability to collude. It would be no different than if the government legalized the practice of businesses colluding to fix prices. You can't take something that they had to make a legal exception for and use it say that preventing that practice is collusion. That just makes no sense at all. Aside from that, RTW doesn't prevent the union from negotiating with the company.
Last edited:
My step-dad was a manager there for years and that never happened in any of his stores. I also worked there about a year or so. Also never happened. That's with everyone in our dept getting overtime.
Collectively bargaining is not collusion or price fixing. It's negotiation. Just like you negotiate prices with your other suppliers. The company is not forced to agree to any wage or level of benefits.
F*ck unions. I'm glad I'm not in one at my current job, and I hope I'll never have to be in one again.
They suck. No idea why anybody likes them. Union leadership is laughable. If you think they care about you, put down the crack pipe. You are smoking some really crazy ****.
They suck. No idea why anybody likes them. Union leadership is laughable. If you think they care about you, put down the crack pipe. You are smoking some really crazy ****.
Whether you like them or not it is pretty evident that union workers are better compensated than non-union in like by like comparisons. It's no surprise that as union membership has declined that so have labor wages.
I haven't worked for a union since 1981 but I have observed what has happened to the labor market.
Not true. It's legalized collusion to fix prices. Under the Sherman Act the courts used the part of the law dealing with cartels against unions, because they are a cartel. The Clayton Antitrust Act, which came later, remedied this by exempting unions as being treated as cartels. Collective bargaining is obviously collusion between sellers of labor to price fix. That is the whole point of a union. That is what gains them negotiating power. It's legal, but it's clearly collusion. I've never seen anyone deny that basic fact until now.
Collusion is where several individuals, or businesses, cooperate with each to fix prices or control the supply of a good or service to extract a higher price for the good or service. That specifically is what unions do. It was illegal under the Sherman Act, but was later exempted under the Clayton Antitrust Act. Now what do you think it is?
The definition of collusion is; "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.". The legal definition is; "illegal cooperation or conspiracy". Unions engaging in collective bargaining is neither secretive or illegal. Calling collective bargaining "legalized collusion" is like calling tackling in football "legalized holding". Hell, democracy is a form of collusion the way you are trying to define it.
That's just absurd. You conveniently ignore the most important part of my definition, which is to fix prices or limit supply in order to extract a higher price. Democracy in no way fits that definition. And under the Sherman Act, it was considered illegal cooperation. That is point. The Clayton Act exempted union member collusion from being illegal. Therefore, my statement that it is legalized collusion. That's what gives them negotiating power. If they weren't fixing supply, they couldn't extract a higher value for the product they are selling. As I said before, this is pretty much common knowledge. I've never met anyone who denies that union activity is legalized collusion. They are essentially a legal cartel under the Clayton Act.
That's like saying companies setting their prices is collusion. Or a corporation's board making decisions is collusion.
To quote the definition is absurd? The problem with your definition of "fix prices or limit supply in order to extract a higher price" is that, that is something that the market does to commodities all the time. The purpose of any "Limited Edition" is to limit the supply to make the value higher. We limit our money supply as not to dilute the value of the dollar. The diamond market limits the quantity of diamonds on the market to keep the value higher. Farmers if they can hold their grains, produce and livestock to extract the best price and not flood the market. There are many suppliers of products that will not go into WalMart or sell on Amazon because it will deflate their pricing.
Collective bargaining doesn't "fix prices". It negotiates a price that is agreeable to both management and labor. Labor can't fix a price that puts the business out of business.
If you want to stick to your guns that it is "legalized collusion" then you must admit that "legalized collusion" is a common aspect of business. We can find it everywhere. Everybody, every entity wants the highest price it can get for its services and does what is legal to achieve those means.
No it's not. Not remotely similar. But if a group of companies agree to fix a price and work to keep other companies from selling their product, then it's collusion and illegal. OPEC, for example, is illegal in the United States.
Wow, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding on the subject. Every example you listed is not collusion because it's a single company or person doing it. A company, acting on its own, can limit the supply of its product and set its price at whatever it desires. Collusion exists when companies or people cooperate with each other to fix price or manipulate supply. The market, by definition, does not do that. If a group of farmers got together to fix the price, or limit the supply, of a commodity, then that would be illegal. If one farmer, or multiple farmers, do it independently, then there is no collusion and it's not illegal. OPEC is a prime example of collusion. It's a group of oil suppliers agreeing on a fixed supply level in order to drive up the price of their product. It is illegal in this country, but not where they operate. Diamond suppliers may very well limit quantity and collude to do it. I have no idea. but if they are located in countries where collusion is not illegal, they can certainly get away with it. If a group of diamond suppliers located in the US collude to manipulate supply, and the government knew about it, they would be arrested because it's illegal.
Labor doesn't fix prices. It colludes to limit supply in order to extract a higher price. If each member of labor had to act independently, they would have to accept the market rate for labor. By banding together, colluding, they are able to extract a higher wage than they otherwise could because they are controlling the supply of labor. It's pretty straightforward and a widely recognized fact. As I have said before, that's why the Clayton Act specifically exempted unions from being considered a cartel under the law. If that had not happened, the practice would be illegal today.
No kidding. It doesn't have to be a group of companies to be collusion. People can collude too. I used that example because specifically mentioned companies and corporations in your response.
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust lawsshall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.
(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 6, 38 Stat. 731.)
That common sense tells us that anti trust laws don't apply to labor. Labor is not a commodity to be bought and sold. Collusion does not apply. Collusion is COMPETITORS conspiring to artificially fix prices. You can't be in collusion with someone that is within your own organization. That's called cooperation. A union's goal is to advocate for their members. Wages are only one part of that. Safety, labor standards and benefits are also a part of that. You seem to be refusing to accept logic and the dictionary in order to defend your political position.
We've been through this several times and you never say anything that I haven't already addressed. Unions controlling the supply of labor to a company in order to extract a higher price is collusion and was illegal under the Sherman Act. It took the Clayton Act to exempt unions from anti-trust laws. So yes, I am perfectly aware that unions are no longer subject to anti-trust laws. I have said that many times. And you can collude with someone in your own organization. Just because you form an organization doesn't change whether people are colluding to control the supply of something or fix prices. OPEC is an organization. By that logic, they can't collude because they all belong to the same organization. Unions also attempt to lock out competing sources of labor. They were absolutely subject to anti-trust laws prior to the Clayton Act and were considered a cartel just like OPEC. A cartel colludes to fix supply or prices. It's what it does.
This isn't that hard. I'm not sure why it offends you that unions collude. It's perfectly allowable and legal because of the Clayton Act. But the underlying economics that allow unions to extract higher wages is because they control the supply of labor which allows them extract higher wages.