Target' No Vote, and Retail Unions in America

[BvBPL]

Being a part of a union should not be grounds for dismissal, but not showing up for work if the union decides to strike sure can be.

If the workers can’t strike then the union would have very little negotiating capacity and power. Removing the ability to strike would basically remove any real reason to unionize.

Allowing employers to fire employees who don't show up for work is not "removing the ability to strike".

Yes, you are correct. Being on strike is not the same as absentism / not showing up for work. I agree with you.

 

[Zelig]

If the workers can’t strike then the union would have very little negotiating capacity and power. Removing the ability to strike would basically remove any real reason to unionize.

Allowing employers to fire employees who don't show up for work is not "removing the ability to strike".

 

[Traitorfish]

Allowing employers to fire employees who don't show up for work is not "removing the ability to strike".

Of course it is, don't be so obtuse. If a strike necessarily took the form of a mass resignation, then it would be hugely weakened as a bargaining tool, and in most cases entirely crippled.

That is, historically, the idea behind such legislation, is it not?

 

[Arwon]

I always feel like I'm on another planet when I read threads about American industrial relations. Christ, this isn't the 19th century. The right to freely associate, the right to collectively bargain, these things are god damn important.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The right to freely associate is extremely important. It is part of the right of right of free assembly that is part of the first amendment of the bill of rights. The right to collectively bargain is something very different. Individuals of course have the right to attempt to bargain collectively, no one has a right to compel any individual to bargain against his/her will. If industry accepts a union contract it is wrong to break it, but it is in no way wrong to refuse to accept a contract from the start.

 

[JollyRoger]

If industry accepts a union contract it is wrong to break it, but it is in no way wrong to refuse to accept a contract from the start.

If the collective ownership of a company owns the company in a form that gives the individuals state-created protections from indvidual liability (corporation, LLC, LLP, etc.), I see no problem with the state requiring the collective entity to deal with collective labor if enough in labor agree to collective representation. If the enity wants to run as a pure partnership without statutorily created individual liability protection, then the case for the partnership being subject to collective bargaining is weakened a bit.

 

[Arwon]

Why should the employing corporation, with all the legal benefits of incorporation and limited liability, get to collectively negotiate as a unified representative of capital, but a similarly unified representation of workers should not?

 

[amadeus]

I always feel like I'm on another planet when I read threads about American industrial relations. Christ, this isn't the 19th century. The right to freely associate, the right to collectively bargain, these things are god damn important.

As is the right of the employer in choosing how they want to run their business.

 

[JollyRoger]

As is the right of the employer in choosing how they want to run their business.

If they choose to run it with state-created protections, then state-created disadvantages come as part of the package.

 

[amadeus]

If they choose to run it with state-created protections, then state-created disadvantages come as part of the package.

Is it even (legally) a choice?

 

[Arwon]

You don't have to incorporate. Individual owners of capital don't have to join forces under limited liability contractual arrangements.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is it even (legally) a choice?

Absolutely. You do not have to form an entity at any size. Even if you go the state-sanctioned entity route, you can choose to limit your number of employees to avoid many regulations (especially labor-related regulations).

 

[Cutlass]

The right to freely associate is extremely important. It is part of the right of right of free assembly that is part of the first amendment of the bill of rights. The right to collectively bargain is something very different. Individuals of course have the right to attempt to bargain collectively, no one has a right to compel any individual to bargain against his/her will. If industry accepts a union contract it is wrong to break it, but it is in no way wrong to refuse to accept a contract from the start.

Companies work collectively to keep wages down. That's not a new concept Adam Smith wrote about it 240 years ago. So why can't labor act collectively to move wages up?

 

[BvBPL]

If the collective ownership of a company owns the company in a form that gives the individuals state-created protections from indvidual liability (corporation, LLC, LLP, etc.), I see no problem with the state requiring the collective entity to deal with collective labor if enough in labor agree to collective representation.

Excellent, excellent point.

You also point out that companies can skirt labor laws by employing fewer workers. I think this raises an interesting point. Potentially many companies could outsource their labor to employment agencies or offer their employees independent contracts in lieu of permanent employment with the company. The fact that relatively few companies do so on a large scale with their workforces illustrates how companies really need to have workers who have a vested interest in the performance of their employers. Having worker friendly workplaces and compensation arrangements, whether through union contracts or employers being responsive to the desires of the workers, would help to cement the relationship employees have with their employers.

I have a feeling a lot of employers are going to get a rude awakening over the next couple years as the labor market improves and their best and brightest move on to greener pastures.

A little off topic, but personally, I think employee-owned companies hold a lot of promise for improving workers’ situations in the future. Employee-owned companies like Publix, King Arthur Flour, and (formerly) UPS are leaders in their field.

 

[Arwon]

Also employee-owned: virtually all law firms. Employee ownership works best when the workers make relatively homogenous inputs and have similar interests. You couldn't do it with an airline, for example. (The big reason why capital-owned companies are the norm is that money as an input is inherently homogenous so voting is easy to allocate, and interests are usually common. This is also why producer-owned companies mostly occur in agriculture, and why customer-owned companies are quite rare in most fields)

 

[aw3524]

Companies work collectively to keep wages down... why can't labor act collectively to move wages up?

In a world where antitrust law punishes companies for being competitive, I suspect the DoJ would instantly be down the throats of any companies actually colluding .

Someone before argued something to the extent of "since corporations are a representative of capital, why can't workers have similar representation?" That misses the forest for the trees. Even in specific fields, there are often many competing representatives of capital that limit any supposed monopsony power. Moreover, as long as my knowledge is not so specialized that I can literally do nothing other than what I am doing presently, there will be competing representatives of capital in other fields. Still, actual competition isn't a prerequisite for competitive behavior (see: Standard Oil's pricing strategy in its heyday), so the main limit to the exercise of monopsony power is the potential for competitors to sprout up and take advantage of exploitative conditions by paying the workers a little extra.

Another natural check to exploitation by the employer is that the worker can just simply leave if he feels that the conditions aren't commensurate with his input. Because of this, the employer can only preserve an exploitative arrangement if I am able to be compelled into remaining where I am. This could really occur only through providing me with extremely specialized knowledge and a restrictive work contract, but both of these things would immediately be apparent by the point of hire.

Ultimately, though, you don't need to buy exploiting labor largely being a myth to believe that powerful unions are a destructive force. The socialist, redistributive fantasy from capitalist to laborer is the more important myth, as it's only a transfer to some labor. To make above-market wages, the unions must necessarily 'close the doors behind them,' excluding other labor and including themselves as long as possible; in the long run, this depresses wages and productivity in the nonunion sectors and often productivity in the unionized sector (through restriction of competing capital, e.g. labor-saving machines). Recognizing that the purpose of production is not employment, the considerably more damaging loss comes as a rent extracted from the consumers.

 

[Cutlass]

In a world where antitrust law punishes companies for being competitive, I suspect the DoJ would instantly be down the throats of any companies actually colluding

Why? Why? Why? Would you think they would do that?

 

[Ajidica]

In a world where antitrust law punishes companies for being competitive,

I guess you think GazProm was an excellent company that was very competative as it had a complete market domination.

 

[Arwon]

In a world where antitrust law punishes companies for being competitive, I suspect the DoJ would instantly be down the throats of any companies actually colluding .

Someone before argued something to the extent of "since corporations are a representative of capital, why can't workers have similar representation?" That misses the forest for the trees. Even in specific fields, there are often many competing representatives of capital that limit any supposed monopsony power. Moreover, as long as my knowledge is not so specialized that I can literally do nothing other than what I am doing presently, there will be competing representatives of capital in other fields. Still, actual competition isn't a prerequisite for competitive behavior (see: Standard Oil's pricing strategy in its heyday), so the main limit to the exercise of monopsony power is the potential for competitors to sprout up and take advantage of exploitative conditions by paying the workers a little extra.

Another natural check to exploitation by the employer is that the worker can just simply leave if he feels that the conditions aren't commensurate with his input. Because of this, the employer can only preserve an exploitative arrangement if I am able to be compelled into remaining where I am. This could really occur only through providing me with extremely specialized knowledge and a restrictive work contract, but both of these things would immediately be apparent by the point of hire.

Ultimately, though, you don't need to buy exploiting labor largely being a myth to believe that powerful unions are a destructive force. The socialist, redistributive fantasy from capitalist to laborer is the more important myth, as it's only a transfer to some labor. To make above-market wages, the unions must necessarily 'close the doors behind them,' excluding other labor and including themselves as long as possible; in the long run, this depresses wages and productivity in the nonunion sectors and often productivity in the unionized sector (through restriction of competing capital, e.g. labor-saving machines). Recognizing that the purpose of production is not employment, the considerably more damaging loss comes as a rent extracted from the consumers.

Blah blah blah efficient market hypothesis, blah blah blah homo economus, blah blah blah neat models of economic relationships nobody has ever proven in the real world.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[aw3524]

Why? Why? Why? Would you think they would do that?

Stated intent doesn't always coincide with results, and firms have long realized that the one corporation authorized to use force to compel people to do things can also be used to harm one's competitors.

see: DoJ vs. Microsoft, the rhetoric of 'predatory pricing/dumping,' restricting mergers, etc.

stuff

Go ahead and step in when you have something substantive to say.

I guess you think GazProm was an excellent company that was very competative as it had a complete market domination.

Market share doesn't necessarily make a monopoly, but privileges from the government (as I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, was the case with GP) often do. If there are no special privileges, I'd lean toward fairly-earned "market domination," but I'm not familiar enough with GazProm's situation to comment extensively .