The Lottery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Unions engage in negotiations with employers or organisations of employers about general contracts which deal with pretty much every aspect of the relationship between employer and employed. In a typical negotiation that means that there are up to half a dozen of parties (or more) trying to strike a deal. These deals may or may not be sanctioned by the administration. If they are that means the agreement is binding for the entire sector.

Strikes are highly unusual in The Netherlands, to the point that they are almost non-existent.

---

It seems you have a very similar system to ours, out of interest, is it still possible to have an individual contract as long as it is in favor of the employee?

We have a 3 layer system (where the second layer is optional). The basement of every contract is defined in the mighty OR (obliation right), opon of these rules unions and companies can set a general contract (the goverment can make it binding) and on top of that you can agree on a individual contract.

For example the OR devines a minimum of 4 weeks holiday, the general agreement can extend that to a minimum of 5 weeks (but not reduce it) and a individual contract (assuming the general contract is binding) can increase the ammount of holidays even more (but not reduce them lower than 5 weeks).

About the cartell thing: I only see it as a problem, when Unions start to prevent people not being part of the union to work.
This is often the case with strike where the unions blockade the company ect. I think in this cases the Unions shlould be fines (which happens in Switzerland).

Quite in agreement about the unsavory associations of unions. Violence was not uncommon in the 60s and 70s. That's why I think Reagan's union-busting was good. Now we're at a happy medium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

It seems you have a very similar system to ours, out of interest, is it still possible to have an individual contract as long as it is in favor of the employee?

We have a 3 layer system (where the second layer is optional). The basement of every contract is defined in the mighty OR (obliation right), opon of these rules unions and companies can set a general contract (the goverment can make it binding) and on top of that you can agree on a individual contract.

For example the OR devines a minimum of 4 weeks holiday, the general agreement can extend that to a minimum of 5 weeks (but not reduce it) and a individual contract (assuming the general contract is binding) can increase the ammount of holidays even more (but not reduce them lower than 5 weeks).

About the cartell thing: I only see it as a problem, when Unions start to prevent people not being part of the union to work.
This is often the case with strike where the unions blockade the company ect. I think in this cases the Unions shlould be fines (which happens in Switzerland).

---

As long as the individual contract doesn't undercut the CAO (Tarifvertrag) then you can, just as the CAO itself can divert from the law as long as it doesn't go below the legal minimum. The whole system is dependent on whether or not the government makes the CAO generally binding or not. If it goes against government policies for example they won't.

Here in Holland it's illegal anyway to prevent people who are willing to work from doing so. Also, strikes are organised by individual unions. Which means that part of the workforce can decide to go on strike where their collegues are with a union that will not strike. At my workplace we can see this very nicely; the new general agreement here is being negotiated between my employer with 3 unions, two of which are advising members to support a deal. The third union at the moment is inciting its members to vote against (which doesn't mean they will by the way). After the vote the situation is re-assessed and then there will either be new/more negotiations or an actual deal.

I supose you've got the company councils too then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Re. unions and their heinous activities, there is one thing I've been wondering. It seems pretty clear that several of the American members of this board have major issues with the way unions attempt to raise the salaries of their members through eg. restricting the supply of labour, or by threatening to do so. But how do you guys feel about other union-activities such as encouraging/enabling further training of members, upholding standards, etc? Ie. those activities that may add value to the workers as opposed to those activities that mostly just add costs.

---

It's the 'murican way, dude! Black or white, if something does not fit, do away with it altogether! Markets must be free!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, you could have a cartel of small business owners...In fact, that was the context in which they were mentioned by Adam Smith.

Or a cartel does so on behalf of small business owners. I don't see why you people keep on trying to create these false distinctions. Either entities should be allowed to fix prices or they should not. It's irrelevant whether those entities are individuals or not.

---

That's still a cartel of business owners. Emphasis on the business, m'dear.

And you've yet to present any, let alone a convincing, argument about why price fixing by capital is bad and price fixing by labor is good or why the two should be treated differently at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And you've yet to present any, let alone a convincing, argument about why price fixing by capital is bad and price fixing by labor is good or why the two should be treated differently at all.

---

Balance of power.

It's why some fusions are denied by the courts due to cartel laws and others aren't. Maybe you should take a look into that concept?

Furthermore, what's with this hysterical "Oh, an aspect of something is broken! Let's not fix it, let's throw away the whole concept altogether"-attitude? Geeze, did you see me crying for a dissolution of all banks due to the crisis?
Because that's the way you're behaving right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Balance of power.

It's why some fusions are denied by the courts due to cartel laws and others aren't. Maybe you should take a look into that concept?

---

So in industries where labor has a significant advantage over capital (i.e. where there's a shortage of labor), you would be ok with capital forming cartels?

Quote:

---

Furthermore, what's with this hysterical "Oh, an aspect of something is broken! Let's not fix it, let's throw away the whole concept altogether"-attitude? Geeze, did you see me crying for a dissolution of all banks due to the crisis?

---

Have you actually read my argument? I'm not attacking unions for abusing their power. I'm attacking them for doing their job, which is creating a cartel.

I disagree about the balance of power thing. That's not a legitimate rationale. It is sufficient to invoke the rights of individuals to establish a collective voice, where the same is not true for large entities like corporations.

Loki, you actually haven't supported your point. You use words like cartel than don't apply, then knock it down. Well, a union ain't a cartel. Granted, an association of unions would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I disagree about the balance of power thing. That's not a legitimate rationale. It is sufficient to invoke the rights of individuals to establish a collective voice, where the same is not true for large entities like corporations.

Loki, you actually haven't supported your point. You use words like cartel than don't apply, then knock it down. Well, a union ain't a cartel. Granted, an association of unions would be.

---

Unions are cartels, by definition. Their main job is to get owners of a certain resource together and set prices, preventing anyone who refuses to pay that price from obtaining that resource. Why do you think labor unions get an official exemption from anti-trust laws?

Main Entry: car·tel
Pronunciation: \kär-ˈtel\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, letter of defiance, from Old Italian cartello, literally, placard, from carta leaf of paper — more at card
Date: 1692

1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
3 : a combination of political groups for common action

Definition fail, Loki. The definitions I found all restrict the use of cartel to some sort of collection of groups. A union, however, it a collection of individuals.

I'll note that your definition of cartel includes corporate trade groups. So, now that the definition of cartel is cleared up, can we assume that you're for outlawing corporate trade groups, or even chambers of commerce, yet unions are OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I'll note that your definition of cartel includes corporate trade groups. So, now that the definition of cartel is cleared up, can we assume that you're for outlawing corporate trade groups, or even chambers of commerce, yet unions are OK?

---

Unions meet the second definition. Workers are commercial enterprises; they own labor.

Do corporate trade groups set prices?

No it's not. A union is not "a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices." It is a group of individual citizens. Are you really being so dishonest as to call single citizens "enterprises?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton...Act#Exemptions

The US government thinks unions are cartels. Whether the workers are citizens is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant whether the business owner is a citizen. What matters is that they own a product (labor), which they're colluding to set the price of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

So in industries where labor has a significant advantage over capital (i.e. where there's a shortage of labor), you would be ok with capital forming cartels?

---

I would be okay with a reduction of power. If a union becomes too powerful, its powers should be restricted. If a company becomes too powerful, it should be broken up.

Not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Have you actually read my argument? I'm not attacking unions for abusing their power. I'm attacking them for doing their job, which is creating a cartel.

---

Err, no, you're actually conflating the two issues. And a union is still not a cartel. You'd rather have all the power residing in the hands of companies. That's why you're also conflating a natural ressource (the amount of workers available) with a not-so-natural ressource (the amount of work opportunities created and the quality thereof).

That's the problem with you economists - your precious terms do a piss-poor job of depicting reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Unions meet the second definition. Workers are commercial enterprises; they own labor.

Do corporate trade groups set prices?

---

Geeze, economist hogwash to the rescue. If you don't like the definitions, redefine them until they are meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton...Act#Exemptions

The US government thinks unions are cartels. Whether the workers are citizens is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant whether the business owner is a citizen. What matters is that they own a product (labor), which they're colluding to set the price of.

---

Actually, this act only says that unions are not subject to the act. Which may also mean that unions are not considered cartels...

"Economists who study unions—including some who are avowedly prounion—analyze them as cartels that raise wages above competitive levels by restricting the supply of labor to various firms and industries.

Many unions have won higher wages and better working conditions for their members. In doing so, however, they have reduced the number of jobs available in unionized companies. That second effect occurs because of the basic law of demand: if unions successfully raise the price of labor, employers will purchase less of it. Thus, unions are a major anticompetitive force in labor markets. Their gains come at the expense of consumers, nonunion workers, the jobless, taxpayers, and owners of corporations.

According to Harvard economists Richard Freeman and James Medoff, who look favorably on unions, “Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels” (1984, p. 6)."


http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html

:confused: It doesn't call unions a cartel there. Probably that portion of the Clayton Act is there purely to keep zealots who can't read a dictionary from conflating citizens and corporations and thus prosecuting unions as illegal entities. Let's face it, that particular action probably occurred frequently in the early days of unions.

You're defining the world in terms of abstract economist terms. Little of the world actually thinks that way.


Edit: this is typical academic myopia. Define the world in the terms you use to simplify it, as opposed to using the terms that the rest of the world uses.

I gave you a cartel definition. Just because some pencil-headed economists (most of whom have overt agendas) choose to redefine the word isn't MY problem. Find another word.

Wait, so you're complaining the way economists define a term that they use to analyze economic phenomena? Unions meet the economic definition of a cartel. Just because you happen to think of cartels as something else doesn't somehow change that fact. Read post above yours.

And for the record, I'm not an economist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Wait, so you're complaining the way economists define a term that they use to analyze economic phenomena? Unions meet the economic definition of a cartel. Just because you happen to think of cartels as something else doesn't somehow change that fact. Read post above yours.

And for the record, I'm not an economist.

---

Well, then stop drinking the economists' cool-aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Well, then stop drinking the economists' cool-aid.

---

If economists don't get to define economic terms, then who does? :confused:

Tear, I'm going to stop responding to you if your response continues to be "well your source has an agenda". Everyone has an agenda. Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Wait, so you're complaining the way economists define a term that they use to analyze economic phenomena? Unions meet the economic definition of a cartel. Just because you happen to think of cartels as something else doesn't somehow change that fact. Read post above yours.

---

I read the dictionary for the usage of the word. Just because some economists study them in a certain way as an analysis tool means nothing. We're talking legality and rights, not how some abstract entity behaves in an algorithm. I have no doubt that unions behave as cartels in simulations, and are darned similar to cartels in real life. Hey, it would be nice if I could wave my egghead wand, thus disregarding the Constitution and making unions go away. But I can't. They are made of individuals. Cartels are made of groups.

Quote:

---

And for the record, I'm not an economist.

---

Doesn't stop you from acting like one and adhering to a school of thought like one.

The term cartel is an economic term. It's used to denote certain economic behavior. Why is that so hard to understand? It has nothing to do with a particular school of thought. This is how the field of economics views the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If economists don't get to define economic terms, then who does? :confused:

Tear, I'm going to stop responding to you if your response continues to be "well your source has an agenda". Everyone has an agenda. Get over it.

---

"analyze" != "define"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

If economists don't get to define economic terms, then who does? :confused:

---

It's a legal term in the context of this debate. Why? Because we are talking about whether union actions are legal or not, and what the attitude of the government should be.

Quote:

---

Tear, I'm going to stop responding to you if your response continues to be "well your source has an agenda". Everyone has an agenda. Get over it.

---

Cross-thread referencing and thus trolling. You made it personal. Tsk. Reported. :o

Edit: Joke. It was a joke. You know, followed by a joke-y emoticon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I disagree about the balance of power thing. That's not a legitimate rationale. It is sufficient to invoke the rights of individuals to establish a collective voice, where the same is not true for large entities like corporations.

Loki, you actually haven't supported your point. You use words like cartel than don't apply, then knock it down. Well, a union ain't a cartel. Granted, an association of unions would be.

---

Define an association of unions. Because I'm struggling to think of ways the large conglomerate unions do not meet the definition of a cartel *in economic terms, not legal terms* A local certainly is not a cartel, the UAW might be, and I have trouble with the idea that the AFL-CIO is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Define an association of unions. Because I'm struggling to think of ways the large conglomerate unions do not meet the definition of a cartel *in economic terms, not legal terms* A local certainly is not a cartel, the UAW might be, and I have trouble with the idea that the AFL-CIO is not.

---

A single union meets the definition as long as it has more than one member. I really don't see why this is so difficult to understand. Do multiple actors that are selling the same product come together to fix prices? A union with two members might not be very effective, but no one said cartels have to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

:confused: It doesn't call unions a cartel there. Probably that portion of the Clayton Act is there purely to keep zealots who can't read a dictionary from conflating citizens and corporations and thus prosecuting unions as illegal entities. Let's face it, that particular action probably occurred frequently in the early days of unions.

---

Uh. . . that portion of the Clayton Act is there to keep the Executive from successfully prosecuting unions as cartels, since the courts almost always agreed with the prosecution without that protection.

Quote:

---

You're defining the world in terms of abstract economist terms. Little of the world actually thinks that way.

---

Again, the legal system did and does.

Quote:

---

I gave you a cartel definition. Just because some pencil-headed economists (most of whom have overt agendas) choose to redefine the word isn't MY problem. Find another word.

---

Uh. . . it's THEIR word. They came up with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Hey, it would be nice if I could wave my egghead wand, thus disregarding the Constitution and making unions go away. But I can't. They are made of individuals. Cartels are made of groups.

---

As I told Hazir earlier, unions are not constitutionally protected. They are more than the explicitly guaranteed right of assembly and the implicitly protected right of association. And everything above the Local is, in fact, made up of groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Define an association of unions. Because I'm struggling to think of ways the large conglomerate unions do not meet the definition of a cartel *in economic terms, not legal terms* A local certainly is not a cartel, the UAW might be, and I have trouble with the idea that the AFL-CIO is not.

---

That's why I brought it up. I, too, was thinking that the large conglomerate unions were cartels. The Teamsters, for example. Essentially tried to encompass everybody that was shlepping something, and later include many who were not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Uh. . . that portion of the Clayton Act is there to keep the Executive from successfully prosecuting unions as cartels, since the courts almost always agreed with the prosecution without that protection.

---

Right. But that's a trend reflecting the long-standing resentment of elites towards unions, no?

Quote:

---

Again, the legal system did and does.

---

The legal system is an extension of politicians, or more accurately the interests that buy politicians.

Quote:

---

Uh. . . it's THEIR word. They came up with it.

---

The economists that model unions or cartels, from whose definitions Loki is defining the word, were not the ones to coin cartel. Those who coined it defined it the way I defined it. Loki is using a straw man. It's a cartel! Must be bad and illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

As I told Hazir earlier, unions are not constitutionally protected. They are more than the explicitly guaranteed right of assembly and the implicitly protected right of association. And everything above the Local is, in fact, made up of groups.

---

I agree that aggregate unions (e.g. AFL-CIO and Teamsters) are certainly cartels. I broached that subject. Not entirely sure about locals. I think it depends on whether they are all employees of a single employer. For example, US Steel could have multiple plants, and consequently the "union of employees of US Steel" would be a single negotiating body, even though they are at different locations.

Not entirely sure about, say, unions working in the same industry in the same town, but for different companies. For example, in old Detroit auto workers from different companies had to organize together or they had no chance at the clout necessary to win concessions. Not really fair to call them a cartel, since they were basically a single negotiating bloc not in direct competition. Not entirely independent.

Compare that to Teamsters, which IIRC involved those orking in shipping. So, truckers in teamsters, rail workers as well. That is clearly a cartel, since the workers are not in direct competition.

Oh, by the way, in Europe (all of it) the right to join and form unions for the protection of one's is interests is defined as a human right. Under European law it would impossible to treat a union as a cartel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Oh, by the way, in Europe (all of it) the right to join and form unions for the protection of one's is interests is defined as a human right. Under European law it would impossible to treat a union as a cartel.

---

No, it would be impossible to prosecute a union for being a cartel, just as in the US.