The Lottery

[Aimless]

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/17.html

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall 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.

What's going on??!

[Loki]

The whole point of the Clayton Act is to prevent prosecution of unions for anti-trust behavior by designating unions as a special kind of entity. If they weren't considered cartels, there would be no need for the legislation.

[Dreadnaught]

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.

I think where you and I probably disagree most is on whether we're at a happy medium. While I agree, the situation in the 60s and 70s was often ridiculous, I think the structural budget problems created by public sector unions in many states (like my own) is just as outrageous.

[earthJoker]

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

No, unlicke Germany and Austria we don't have them. Is it in the Netherlands like in Germany where some of the work councils get promoted to the boards of directors?


Just to make my stance clear. IMO unions need to be regulated, situations like in France or Italia are absolutely not to be tolerated.

[Aimless]

The whole point of the Clayton Act is to prevent prosecution of unions for anti-trust behavior by designating unions as a special kind of entity. If they weren't considered cartels, there would be no need for the legislation.

Ah, okay. I interpreted this summat differently, namely that about a hundred years ago some people interpreted the Sherman Act as being applicable to labour unions and tried to prosecute them as cartels, and then it was decided that labour itself is a special entity that is not a commodity or an article of commerce and that labour unions could therefore not be smacked down for being cartels. So that, in at least some contexts, labour unions have not been considered cartels for some time.

[Hazir]

No, unlicke Germany and Austria we don't have them. Is it in the Netherlands like in Germany where some of the work councils get promoted to the boards of directors?


Just to make my stance clear. IMO unions need to be regulated, situations like in France or Italia are absolutely not to be tolerated.

That would be in Germany. In Holland they only have the right to be consulted, but not to actually decide. Also the employees on the council are virtually immune to attempts to terminate their employment.

AFAIK unions in France are more or less subject to the same rules as elsewhere in Europe. It's just the fact that they tend to be more extremist in their outlook. I don't know about Italy, but I assume the same is true there.

[']['ear]

I think where you and I probably disagree most is on whether we're at a happy medium. While I agree, the situation in the 60s and 70s was often ridiculous, I think the structural budget problems created by public sector unions in many states (like my own) is just as outrageous.

Teachers, you mean. Well, work against it with your politician, like with any other issue. You think I don't resent having to write letters to my representatives so I can breath air and drink water that isn't poisoned? So I can swim off our coast in water that isn't full of bacteria that came from pig anuses? Unless the unions are truly cartels, I don't see that you have a leg to stand on. And certainly there are what amounts to anti-environmental cartels continually lobbying state and fed legislators. If you want to start some change, THAT would rank way the hell in front of any group of workers that has organized.

I really think you guys don't like the outcome and are trying to rationalize an insupportable political action. If TOTAL unions are only several percent, what's the damned problem?

[earthJoker]

AFAIK unions in France are more or less subject to the same rules as elsewhere in Europe. It's just the fact that they tend to be more extremist in their outlook. I don't know about Italy, but I assume the same is true there.

Rules are only as good as their implementation. In France and Italy it is very normal that a strike is not only shutting down the factory for other non-unionized workers but also to blockade public places/roads ect.

[']['ear]

I'm not sure Italy should even be in the discussion. I sometimes consider it a third world country masquerading as a developed one. That's not fair: it's easy to hold their pathetic governance against them.

[earthJoker]

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." ~ Joseph de Maistre

Italy is some kind of mixture, some things work excellent some normal, and some things are just totally broken.

[']['ear]

Can't argue with that.