Let's talk about Unions.

Neomalthusian said:

That's what I'm saying. Businesses cannot be cartels because cartels are illegal. Unions are cartels which are legal because they're exempted from the laws that make cartels illegal.

They don't need to be "in the same category" for cartels and monopoly power to be universally illegal (including as it concerns employee organizations). Right To Work helps significantly to promote the illegality of coercive monopoly power.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you really must buy a dictionary.

The dictionary definition of cartel is this: "An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition." Btw, suppliers does not mean "of labor".

The unions are not "cartels"! They are like a club or union of like-minded individuals or, by definition, a "trade union".

Get your language right, and maybe we can have a discussion about the two very different entities (companies and unions) - and how they are BOTH regulated in highly different ways.

You are confusing the two because it suits some silly notions you have of the relationship between businesses and the workers they employ ...

Neomalthusian said:

That's what I'm saying. Businesses cannot be cartels because cartels are illegal. Unions are cartels which are legal because they're exempted from the laws that make cartels illegal.

They don't need to be "in the same category" for cartels and monopoly power to be universally illegal (including as it concerns employee organizations). Right To Work helps significantly to promote the illegality of coercive monopoly power.

Click to expand...

Get a dictionary! The definition of "cartel": An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.

Unions are not even suppliers of labor, but they are not cartels. They are merely representatives of labor and cannot restrict competition of labor - a company can always hire a non-union worker. (Not in America. In Europe they can.)

That difference is very subtle but important. And only a few European countries recognized that difference by allowing two member of the unions to sit on the Board of Directors. Germany is one of them.

Which is why the US went off on a binge of rewarding Upper-Management stock-options that made them millionaires. But the working-joe-'n-jane got bananas.

Which is therefore what Social Justice is all about. Not equality of financial rewards but fairness in their distribution. There is no viable reason whatsoever why management may get a larger portion (of say stock-options) but further down the ladder other staff get nothing but a salary.

That's like saying all white's can play golf, but all coloured players go elsewhere! It is a fundamental discrimination that should be illegal ...

Lafayette said:

Sorry, but you really must buy a dictionary.

The dictionary definition of cartel is this: "An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition." Btw, suppliers does not mean "of labor".

The unions are not "cartels"!

Click to expand...

Sellers of anything provide either goods or services. Sellers or services (labor) are usually companies. Companies aren't allowed to develop and wield monopoly power or restrict competition to push or keep prices higher than a potential competing seller would be willing to sell them. What unions do is what a cartel does. It's not even "like" a cartel. It is purely a cartel, to the bone.

Get your language right, and maybe we can have a discussion about the two very different entities (companies and unions) - and how they are BOTH regulated in highly different ways.

Click to expand...

Why do you continue to pretend I'm not acknowledging precisely how differently businesses and labor cartels are regulated? I'm explaining the vast difference, and advocating we end this vast difference. Right To Work will help a great deal. By the way, the idea that labor cartels are regulated is pretty hilarious.

Lafayette said:

Unions are not even suppliers of labor,

Click to expand...

wrong of course. if you need a job and your in the union) you go to the union hall and when your turn comes up the union supplies you as labor to a employer. Its interferes with capitalism and thus makes an economy less efficient.

Neomalthusian said:

Sellers of anything provide either goods or services. Sellers or services (labor) are usually companies. Companies aren't allowed to develop and wield monopoly power or restrict competition to push or keep prices higher than a potential competing seller would be willing to sell them. What unions do is what a cartel does. It's not even "like" a cartel. It is purely a cartel, to the bone.



Why do you continue to pretend I'm not acknowledging precisely how differently businesses and labor cartels are regulated? I'm explaining the vast difference, and advocating we end this vast difference. Right To Work will help a great deal. By the way, the idea that labor cartels are regulated is pretty hilarious.

Click to expand...

Puerile nonsense.

Moving right along ...

Lafayette said:

Puerile nonsense.

Moving right along ...

Click to expand...

Even economists who like unions have admitted they're cartels. The word rubs you the wrong way so you want to pretend otherwise, but that's entirely what they are.

Neomalthusian said:

Even economists who like unions have admitted they're cartels. The word rubs you the wrong way so you want to pretend otherwise, but that's entirely what they are.

Click to expand...

Not the world, but ignoramuses on this forum who think one-liner personal sarcasm is a valid rebuttal.

And, despite your obvious lack of an English-dictionary, you still want to think that Worker Unions are cartels even when you are corrected by the dictionary definition.

You are trying to make you points with arguments that are unacceptable.

Voted for Donald Dork, did you? He does the same. It's become a "mania" of the Rabid Right in the US.

Maybe one-liner inanities (logical inconsistencies) are the "thing" in the US on Message Boards, and I would not doubt it for a moment. The artifact encapsulates raging personal venom, of which people relieve themselves on public forums.

But such is by no means the mark of a civilized nation ...

ThoughtEx. said:

... Unions do exist to protect the common laborer. The problem is, they are way to effective. And their effectiveness has upset the equilibrium in their respective markets. One side effect of this equilibrium upset is business are now considering undertaking the high initial cost of automating much of their production and distribution. In favor of the low operating costs the shift would bring in the future. Some see this shift as inevitable, and the only question is when will the bulk of our manufacturing and service industries pull the trigger. ...
... I think it's to late to save certain industries, and near impossible to bring any back. ...

Click to expand...

ThoughtEx, higher minimum rate accelerates automation. Lesser per-unit production costs and/or other improvements due to automation have been net beneficial to our nation.
To the extent lesser minimum rate delays or otherwise hinders automation in the USA, those lesser rates are additionally net detrimental to our nation’s economic and social wellbeing.

I’m among the proponents for USA adopting the unilateral significantly market driven global trade policy described within the Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”. The policy does not tolerate USA imports exceeding the value of our annual exports. Because markets, rather than the government determines what volumes of products are shipped where and when, goods priced higher due to more excessive USA labor costs would, (as they now are) particularly vulnerable to competing foreign goods.

Trade deficits are detrimental to their nations annual GDP and numbers of jobs. Import certificates would eliminate portions of USA’s annual trade deficits of goods not due to scarce or precious mineral materials.
Creatures function within their environments. Change the laws governing global trade would change global behaviors. If USA adopted the Import Certificate policy, we needn’t speculate as to which USA industries would thrive or revived or newborn; markets would make those determinations.

Refer to Wikipedia’s article entitled “Import Certificates”.
Respectfully, Supposn

Lafayette said:

Not the world, but ignoramuses on this forum who think one-liner personal sarcasm is a valid rebuttal.

And, despite your obvious lack of an English-dictionary, you still want to think that Worker Unions are cartels even when you are corrected by the dictionary definition.

You are trying to make you points with arguments that are unacceptable.

Voted for Donald Dork, did you? He does the same. It's become a "mania" of the Rabid Right in the US.

Maybe one-liner inanities (logical inconsistencies) are the "thing" in the US on Message Boards, and I would not doubt it for a moment. The artifact encapsulates raging personal venom, of which people relieve themselves on public forums.

But such is by no means the mark of a civilized nation ...

Click to expand...

Not sure what this prattle is about. You don't like the word cartel, even though it describes precisely the fundamental nature of labor unions. That's your issue.

My goal isn't to cure your denial about terminology. My goal is eliminate public sector unions from existence.

Lafayette said:

, you still want to think that Worker Unions are cartels .

Click to expand...

Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price.
What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy ...
403 Forbidden economyhttp://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/what-unions-do-how-labor-unions-affect-jobs-and-the-economy

Neomalthusian said:

My goal is eliminate public sector unions from existence.

Click to expand...

and private sector unions too?

James972 said:

and private sector unions too?

Click to expand...

Sure, although private sector unions seem to be doing an adequate job eliminating themselves, but yeah, let's get rid of them too while we're at it. Right To Work being law of the land will be half the battle. Alternatively we could just repeal 15 U.S. Code § 17 and, poof, they'd be gone. I.e., they would be relegated to voluntary legal defense funds that employees could participate in for the purpose of getting assistance applying to state labor boards regarding grievances, and/or they would be actual firms that would be subject to competitive bidding (and antitrust regulations) for the projects they want, like all other firms.

There is nothing a labor union can do, or should be allowed to do, concerning compensation and conditions of employment, that couldn't be simply written into law by the government itself.

Neomalthusian said:

Not sure what this prattle is about. You don't like the word cartel, even though it describes precisely the fundamental nature of labor unions. That's your issue.

My goal isn't to cure your denial about terminology. My goal is eliminate public sector unions from existence.

Click to expand...

Poor thing. As a sickness, I am sure it is curable.

Get help ...

Each next post from you has less content than the one before it. I've shared basic facts and you do nothing but squirm with discomfort.

1) Employers can already decide all by themselves to stop agreeing to union security clauses.
2) Janus v. AFSCME may well cause Right To Work to be law of the land, thereby gutting public sector unions (FDR would have celebrated the decision)
3) Private sector unions cannot survive in this country anymore, as global competition and automation will simply crush them, and already has, really.
4) 15 U.S. Code § 17 is the section which, if repealed, would put an end to labor unions' coercive monopoly powers effective immediately.

The labor movement was a movement, like women's suffrage and civil rights. The labor cartels of today are not "a movement." They're an institution of cartels, plain and simple. There was a labor movement a long time ago which fought back against bad behavior. But movements end, because laws are passed that correct egregious injustices on which the movements are based. And that's great. Movements are good because they typically cause laws to be passed which address the bad behavior. Egregious injustices are corrected by government and its lawmaking power. There is no need or justification for cartels to exist which restrict competition, entry into markets, use monopoly powers to coerce buyers, and coerce sellers into their membership.