Trade Unions (US): Are They Monopolies, and if so, Should They Be "Busted"?

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Just food for thought: If companies can have a monopoly on a good/service and be legally broken up for it, can we not also apply the same concept to trade unions? For example, the United Auto Worker Union (UAW) has a virtual monopoly on the labor used in manufacturing plants, esp north of the old mason-dixon line. Would it not be beneficial to limit unions to their respective plants, or at least their respective companies? How is a company supposed to find competitive labor rates when nearly all of its prospective labor base is "owned" by the same union. I feel that this is a fairly large problem that US manufacturing is facing (being unable to find competitive labor rates) that became evident in the "Big 3" in 2007-08. What would be the economic impact of breaking up these massive unions, could there be legal issues doing so, and/or should it be done?

[last_name_left]

Trades Unions. With an S, I believe.

They are founded on voluntary membership, right? And workers who are not members enjoy the benefits too.

Sometimes Trades Unions work against the greater good by working for their members' interests. Agreed. But that's surely a symptom of a fractured and super competitive society.

You could just as easily ask if it isn't employers and their legal requirement to maximise profits that aren't the cause - as they lead to the need for Unions. At least Unions represent large numbers of (usually low-paid) workers whereas employers represent the necessarily narrower class interests of capital.

If all the world were equally unionised, it'd be a level playing field, and yet not all issues would be resolved. Likewise, if there were no unions, would all issues be resolved? Obviously not. On balance, unions are a definite force for good - from the perspective of democracy, the working class, equality, emancipation, self-expression, etc.

Having said that, American unions are surely quite different to European ones, lacking a socialist and workers' rights movement (for a longtime, at least)?

[chilon]

They are founded on voluntary membership, right? And workers who are not members enjoy the benefits too.

Not really. Non-union members do not enjoy benefits. In classic labor unions like stevedores non-union workers do not get work. In something like Screen Actors Guild, non-union extras get paid far less than SAG union extras.

The other downsides to unions are:
-The problems that can accrue when you have a bad corporate business model and unions that have fought for very large benefits (UAW and Detroit).

-Unions begin to dominate the political landscape (Prison's Guards unions in California).

How do you figure that Georgy? Labor Unions were exempted as early as 1914 in the Clayton Act...

Because the Clayton Anti-trust Act was specifically passed because of how Unions were busted and prosecuted for anti-trust violations under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for over 20 years. You aren't going back far enough in the history of anti-trust acts.

Examples of early union-busting include the Haymarket Riots (1886), Pinkerton's Homestead Strike (1892), the Pullman Strike chaos (1894), etc, many, many incidents of the Sherman Anti Trust being used to break up unions.

[Dr. Croccer]

A bit silly to compare workers voluntarily joining a group to an aggressive and detrimental monopoly one one or more products.

[Sphere]

US trade unions were busted, and are now less than 9% of the workforce (Pre-New deal levels).

[Claudius Gothicus]

I hope you're against lobbies too... because if you are not then well, that' silly.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

I hope you're against lobbies too... because if you are not then well, that' silly.

Well to tell you the truth I am against lobbies.

Trades Unions. With an S, I believe.

They are founded on voluntary membership, right? And workers who are not members enjoy the benefits too.

Yes, there are multiple trade unions. But there are not really multiple trade unions covering a given occupation. We have the UAW for auto workers, United Mine Workers of America for miners, etc. I am talking about unions having a monopoly on specific sectors, not all labor.

US trade unions were busted, and are now less than 9% of the workforce (Pre-New deal levels).

Were they really? I didn't know that.

A bit silly to compare workers voluntarily joining a group to an aggressive and detrimental monopoly one one or more products.

Well with the new card check bill, it ain't all that voluntary anymore

Though I think you are being a little one sided there with your condemnation of monopolies. Union stubbornness on benefits and whatnot helped lead to the demise of the auto companies. If you can't be competitive with labor, your business will suffer.

[Sphere]

Were they really? I didn't know that.

They weren't busted in a legal sense (other than certain prohibitive requirements for unionization), but rather in a market sense with the growth of non-union industries and companies.

[last_name_left]

monopoly isn't a totally bad thing either.

and competition isn't a wholly good thing.

human society is in pretty poor shape if it takes a competitive threat of destitution to force anyone off their arse to do anything, let alone do it well.

If USA unionised workforce is 9% then it's very hard to blame them for anything much isn't it? Surely the real power at work is the development of China, India and others? Capital returns are higher, as labour is plentiful and cheap. And now India has as many PhDs as USA has graduates? Of course production is going to shift. Under socialism such dislocation would hardly matter or need happen. But under capitalism, western developed workers are feeling the pinch. The capitalists are delighted, as they retain their power and increase their profits through off-shoring. Who and how could anyone stop this? Socialism could, but under capitalism there is really nothing much to be done about it. And the movers and shakers don't care.....it suits them as it is.

So, blame unions? Seems harsh, especially when their position is unenviable at the moment - they seek to improve their working class members' interests, all the while reality is saying wage rates need to be reduced (to Chinese/Indian levels) to be competitive. Isn't that what we're witnessing? Chinese and Indian labour undercutting western labour? Like international capital cares that "good jobs" are leaving (have left) USA and Western Europe for the near and far east? But I bet they're happy unions get the blame!

Western capitalism faces severe social issues in medium term imo. Because distribution is based market forces and is individualised, the gap between capital and labour is going to explode. Unless western workers accept pay-rates of China, industry is going to relocate. Capital loves it, the workers much less so. In the big picture this is good news for Indian and Chinese workers, but it's a setback for the international working class as a whole. blah blah blah.

[dogukan]

Just food for thought: If companies can have a monopoly on a good/service and be legally broken up for it, can we not also apply the same concept to trade unions? For example, the United Auto Worker Union (UAW) has a virtual monopoly on the labor used in manufacturing plants, esp north of the old mason-dixon line. Would it not be beneficial to limit unions to their respective plants, or at least their respective companies? How is a company supposed to find competitive labor rates when nearly all of its prospective labor base is "owned" by the same union. I feel that this is a fairly large problem that US manufacturing is facing (being unable to find competitive labor rates) that became evident in the "Big 3" in 2007-08. What would be the economic impact of breaking up these massive unions, could there be legal issues doing so, and/or should it be done?

Isn't that like against the whole idea of being a UNION?
That sir, was a very capitalist approach Even though UNIONs are kind of like companies and not revolutionary forces, their point is to limit exactly what you explained. It is not there to create a bigger economy by making things more difficult for labor, it is for limiting the exploitation of labor hence distrupting productivity or profit to a point.
It is by it's core against a capitalist system.

Unemployement is the favorite thing of capitalism, if you don't lmit it the way Modern Liberals did or if the workers fo not do something(Unionizing) then you pretty much slavery at hand.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Unemployement is the favorite thing of capitalism, if you don't lmit it the way Modern Liberals did or if the workers fo not do something(Unionizing) then you pretty much slavery at hand.

Only if you're a Marxist theorist.

Have you ever red about aggregate demand by Keynes and full employment of all economical factors?

Anyways, I'm quite in favor of democratically elected unions the same that I'm in favor of corporations or ''bosses unions''. The state should be the referee in between them and make them reach political agreements.

[dogukan]

Only if you're a Marxist theorist.

Have you ever red about aggregate demand by Keynes and full employment of all economical factors?

Imagine the classical liberal period. There is no minimum wage, unemployment is 15%.
You are the boss, someone comes to you and say I'll work for 600. The other guy being desperate says to youI'll do it for 500. The other for 400 and it goes on and on.
You can pretty much enslave people this way.

It is actually already happening in the modern world, as we speak.
Un-official workforce is a very common thing and these people do the worse jobs for very very very small amount of money.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Imagine the classical liberal period. There is no minimum wage, unemployment is 15%.
You are the boss, someone comes to you and say I'll work for 600. The other guy being desperate says to youI'll do it for 500. The other for 400 and it goes on and on.
You can pretty much enslave people this way.

It is actually already happening in the modern world, as we speak.
Un-official workforce is a very common thing and these people do the worse jobs for very very very small amount of money.

As I said, only if you're a Marxist theorist.

Classical Liberalism and Neoliberalism fail to understand that the general tendency to balance within a market economy are casual and not causal. There can be full employment on a deregulated market economy but when something goes wrong the Storm will hit the hardest.

Keynes on the other hand acknowledges the real reasons behind the crisis of capitalism and aims for a series of measures that will ensure the full occupation of economic factors(Labor being one of them) as a tool against crisis.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Isn't that like against the whole idea of being a UNION?
That sir, was a very capitalist approach Even though UNIONs are kind of like companies and not revolutionary forces, their point is to limit exactly what you explained. It is not there to create a bigger economy by making things more difficult for labor, it is for limiting the exploitation of labor hence distrupting productivity or profit to a point.
It is by it's core against a capitalist system.

Unemployement is the favorite thing of capitalism, if you don't lmit it the way Modern Liberals did or if the workers fo not do something(Unionizing) then you pretty much slavery at hand.

Not really, no. Non-unionized workers aren't exactly wallowing in the dirt.

I am not saying disband all unions (although I think their time is past). I was just wondering if having multiple unions for a particular labor force (car, miners, steel, etc) would get rid of the BS that unions are able to get away with in some cases. Like getting paid $30 an hr to bolt on hubcaps.

Unions are voted into existence, as are political parties...shall we bust the Democrats and Republicans too, while we're at it?

Like I said, I am not saying "eliminate unions". I am saying I think it would be better to have multiple unions for a company (and workers) to chose between. Similarly, it would probably be better if the Republican and Democratic parties were broken down into more diverse parties (that obviously combine to make the two). And I think you would have more of a point if there was only one party for voters to choose from. Like communist.

[dogukan]

Not really, no. Non-unionized workers aren't exactly wallowing in the dirt.

I am not saying disband all unions (although I think their time is past). I was just wondering if having multiple unions for a particular labor force (car, miners, steel, etc) would get rid of the BS that unions are able to get away with in some cases. Like getting paid $30 an hr to bolt on hubcaps.

You mean for lowering wages and input hence increasing productivity to create more profit?
Or so that one unions compete in terms of demanding more rights for workers?

The purpose here is important.

[Angrychris]

high pay with big breaks and limited corp interference. corp. jobs be unions

[chamaeleo]

Unions are voted into existence, as are political parties...shall we bust the Democrats and Republicans too, while we're at it?

[Georgy Zhukov]

As I recall, the original Anti-Trust acts were used to dissolve labor unions.

[xcorps]

How do you figure that Georgy? Labor Unions were exempted as early as 1914 in the Clayton Act...

OP:

I absolutely believe labor unions should be broken up.

The political power they wield is far askew from what it should be. And before somebody says "they have to balance corporate influence", take a look at opensecrets.org.

Unions make up 11 of the top 20 biggest contributors to political campaigns. Only 3 are corporations. Unions give almost exclusively to one party, from 90 to 98% of contributions going toward Democrats. (The NEA gives 93% of it's contributions to the Democrats, but only 44% of it's members identify themselves as Democrats.)


Labor Unions put unreasonable burdens on industry and commerce, artificially raise the cost of labor, inhibit free enterprise..all without serving a practical purpose. (How exactly does a municipal employee become "exploited"?)

Labor Unions are rife with corruption. A Zogby poll from 2004 showed that 77% of union members polled wanted more government protection...from unions. Big Labor is outdated and has become what it was supposed to fight.

I support the rights of workers to organize privately. I also support the rights of workers to not organize privately. Big Labor does not.

[Squiggle]

Yeah they are, and yeah they should be. Unions have artificially inflated income and benefits in Canada way beyond supportable levels, there parasites on the companies that hired them, and therefore parasites on the Canadian economy. Were losing jobs because of the idiotic entitlement allowed because of the power Unions have. I cant wait until the day Canada's union figures reach, or drop below, America's.