Unions & The Free Market

Are labour unions a natural part of a free-market economy?

Organized labour is generally seen as an impediment to the free flow of goods and services, but that doesn't seem to be the case from a logical standpoint. If a union is constituted without state involvement and is non-coercive, in what way can it be said to be an intervention in the marketplace? It would seem to me that trade unions are a market force like any other, naturally driving up wages and conditions for workers. What is the argument for unionisation being in defiance of the open market?

Isn't is basically price-fixing?

Haven't seen any libertarians against unions desu

It just depends on the situation. Unions do tend to stifle freedom of choice just by their very nature. People aren't able to negotiate their own wages etc. But they're not necessarily a bad thing. Pretending that employers are inherently benign and you'll never have to negotiate hard is silly. The best way to negotiate is with backup. I think the reason unions get the reputation of being tied up with the state is due to public sector unions, corruption within them (specifically their historical ties with organized crime), and the fact that the state had to step in quite a few times to keep them from getting obliterated by industry leaders. They have problems but people who rail against unions are pretty naive. Kind of like people who have a hate boner for American "imperialism" or capitalism in general. They lack perspective and take for granted the relative comfort they have on account of those instotutions.

>Unions do tend to stifle freedom of choice just by their very nature. People aren't able to negotiate their own wages etc.

That's negated entirely by their voluntary nature (provided that the union in question is indeed voluntary). Signing a contract to waive away a certain right under conditions isn't stifling freedom of choice; it was your freedom of choice that allowed you to sign such a contract in the first place. I agree with you about why unions are so vilified.

I suppose there aren't any logical arguments against labour unions, then? It's really all just misconceptions and bad public opinion?

Depends, labor unions like corporations can engage in activity meant to stifle competition. However there is nothing wrong in principle, from a free market perspective, from employees engaging in joint bargaining as long as its totally voluntary on the workers part

In a sense, they're a cartel.

In another sense, they're labour assignment firms.


Basic Income means no more unions, if you think they have too much power.

Labor unions aren't any different from the NRA or Coca Cola lobbying Washington for favors.

It's just another interest group.

But it does depend on the country. In my country the largest labor union is essentially an arm of the government, and holds enormous influence over the market.

If it's unnatural it wouldn't be possible in the first place.

>Organized labour is generally seen as an impediment to the free flow of goods and services,

Obviously it is. If there wasn't organized labour we would all go back to 19th century and people would work 18 hours per day making very little money, without vacations.
That's the wet dream of every capitalist and industrialist throught the world.

Yes, so long as the employer does not have to employ union members. It's even better if the unions take responsibility for unemployment benefits like they do in Sweden I think.

OP, explain to me, in economic terms, what the difference between w Union and a cartel is.

Both are a series of sellers agreeing to restrict access to act as a monopoly, except one is doing so for a good or service and the other is selling labor.

In one case, people with a lot of press that advantage to take advantage of potentially millions of customers. This amplifies the advantage they already have.

In the other case, one is people with little capital coming together for a better negotiating position. This accounts for the disadvantage they have.

A union doesn't really work if it's secret, and a cartel doesn't really work if it's out in the open.

It's normal, that's why in many countries employers give huge bonuses to union leaders and use unions as leverage against government.

On basic principle it's pretty logical - assuming that you're working in, let's say - call centre(picked that one for simplicity) with 99 other people - your individual protest against shitty conditions wage or anything will be met with "lol go find other job if you don't like it here" because it's you(employee) who loses all his income once his out, for employer it's just 1% of his theoretical output, therefore he doesn't have much to lose if you'll get angry at him and quit.

In more complicated situations(let's say - factory) with work specialisation it's harder to tell what % of "output" you are but the logic is largely the same, in comparison to what employee is losing when quitting(100% of your income), while the employer loses tiny fraction of it.

However if in the same situation you have, dunno, a quarter of employees on your side then - sure you can start negotiating because if you'll quit in act of protest it WILL hurt the employer financially.

Of course just as I've said in the beginning - there are methods to impede this process and one of the best of them is to buy the potential leaders - so they won't actually protest.

>In one case, people with a lot of press that advantage to take advantage of potentially millions of customers. This amplifies the advantage they already have.

Cartels can be local, or among people without too much to go on. See every single airport markup ever.

>In the other case, one is people with little capital coming together for a better negotiating position. This accounts for the disadvantage they have.

You do realize MUH FEELS do not constitute an economic position, yes?

>A union doesn't really work if it's secret

Secrecy or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. What makes or breaks unions is the ability of employers to circumvent it by hiring outside the union's reach.

> a cartel doesn't really work if it's out in the open.

Never heard of OPEC?

>Cartels can be local, or among people without too much to go on. See every single airport markup ever.

So they are profiting by overcharging a large number of customers who have less economic leverage than they have?

You're agreeing with me.

>You do realize MUH FEELS do not constitute an economic position, yes?

That wasn't feels. It's people coming together for a better bargaining position.

>Never heard of OPEC?

That depends whether you think they control the deal, or the people buying the oil control the deal. That isn't at all clear.

Labor unions have special protections against the antitrust and tort law which invites cartelization and monopoly.

>You're agreeing with me.

No, I'm not, because the primary action within the cartel is the negotiation with other firms who provide the same product, not the customers.

The deal that makes those people work is the plushie sellers and the snack vendors et al all agreeing to markup the prices, so that the person waiting for the plane doesn't have an alternative but to pay however much a neck pillow goes for these days.

Similarly, a union only works at all when you get the fundamental step 1 going: Having all the laborers, or at least laborers in a field, agree with each other to collectivize their labor negotiations instead of doing it 1 on 1.


>That wasn't feels. It's people coming together for a better bargaining position.

Yes, that's what a cartel is. I'm glad you agree with me.


>That depends whether you think they control the deal, or the people buying the oil control the deal. That isn't at all clear.

It quite literally doesn't. It depends on whether or not they agree on a position together before going out and selling oil.

They do, by the way.

Unions are complex and vary from workforce to workforce. Some are thought to be luddite in nature, and contractually obligate organizations to pay them instead of switching to technologically superior means. Some have used violence and coercion. Most haven't. Some are thought to create barriers to entry and arbitrary bureaucratic hoops for newcomers, to present them from usurping those with experience through sheer wit/ambition.

These are all concerning, especially with regards to the notion of technological and industrial progress. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about them. On one hand exploitation of labor forces and underpayment is something I abhor. On the other hand I think automation can bring us to a post-scarcity economy, but that welfare will have to be expanded to accomodate the inevitable layoffs of an underqualified population. Basic Guaranteed Income may even become necessary.

Yes, they are completely compatible with a free market. They are not comparable to a monopoly unless all the workers of the world were part of the same union which would be terrible.

>underpayment
They are paid according to supply and demand. How is that being underpaid?

>post-scarcity meme
Ideally they should work in the tertiary sector and accumulate capital rather than be dependent on the state, which is easy in the developed world unless you are a typical Chad or Stacy, taking a huge student loan to study media studies, blowing all your money on weed and alcohol and not saving for retirement.