Any form of business larger than a sole proprietorship is a collective action.

The “corporate” form of a business (as supposed to a partnership or other structure) is mostly a matter of taxes, legal liability, and the manner of raising capital and distributing profits.

Powerful unions are typically larger than the workforce of any one single company.

Right. Sole proprietorships and individual workers have similar market power. But without unions, workers have virtually no market power vs corporations (and partnerships, for that matter).

I do agree that both corporations and unions ought to be regulated by antitrust law.

Market power is irrevelant to workers being able to fetch the market rate for their labor. Corporations compete with each other for a limited pool of labor. There is no generalized class conflict between corporations and workers in a free market. Competition happens just as much within classes as between them.

Ultimately that results in the wages offered being determined by the underlying market forces of supply and demand that are far larger and more powerful than the efforts of any single party. And it is in society's best interest for wages to be determined by supply and demand and not some social agenda.

The only policy which provide zero sum benefits to corporations at the expense of workers is immigration. And that can be addressed by workers through political coordination. The primary purpose of unions is to give select groups of workers the ability to engage in rent-seeking at the expense of the wider economy. We can get political coordination between workers without resorting to unions and all the harm that comes along with them.

> Market power is irrevelant to workers being able to fetch the market rate for their labor.

If the market consists of few actors, you get collusion to depress wages and opportunity (in tech you had https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage...) but it exists across a number of industries. Your assertion assumes only good actors, which is not commensurate with reality.

Collusion of this type has a very minor impact on market rates. The example you cite is tech companies coming to an agreement to not cold call each other's employees to head hunt them. And wages in Silicon Valley have exploded over the last couple of decades so obviously there are much larger forces at play in setting wages than these collusions.

This sort of collusion can also be addressed in a much more targeted way than creating laws that give workers who unionize control over major hiring decisions of their employer.

I'm certainly no expert, but it's my impression that workers for large corporations generally get screwed when unions are weak. Based on data from the past several decades.

Unions were very weak in the late 19th century, because the only tools at their disposal were extra-judicial violence, which was met with state retaliation. During that period, when contracting rights were at their strongest, workers saw wages grow at the fastest rate in US history.

Unions in the private sector became much weaker over the last 40 years, but that was not due to the labor laws that empower unions being eased. It was due to the type of industries that unions are prone to form in (e.g. labor-intensive, high volume manufacturing) contracting in the US.

The laws that empower unions make the US inhospitable to key industries.

What's going to happen to the US electric car manufacturing industry if Tesla's workers unionize?

What's going to happen to Amazon's business units if they see massive unionization?

The consequences for a US-based operation when their work force unionizes is a major disincentive for investing in production in the US, and a major impediment to existing US-centred companies from expanding.

You're basically just arguing that corporations will operate where there's the best mix of worker ability and low wages. That's understandable, but short-sighted. Because poor people aren't good customers.

It's a prisoners' dilemma thing. Businesses that can move production to low-wage countries are leeching off businesses that can't move. Also, it rather destroys the concept of a nation, where workers and businesses depend on each other.

When wages were rapidly growing in the late 19th century, the US offered the highest wages in the world.

It's possible to have both high wages and competitive production facilities. That happens when the skill-set of the workforce and the infrastructure and supply-chain of the nation improve enough to compensate for the higher wages.

Forcing companies to pay wages that are above the level that they would be at if left to market forces results in parties in the US less effectively utilizing labor and capital to raise productivity. Less productivity growth ultimately means less wage growth.

The wage boost that comes from a law mandating companies pay higher wages is a one time event, that results from an increase in labor's share of total income, and comes at the expense of lower recurring boosts to wages, because the disruption to the economy caused by such a law reduces the rate of economic growth.

So laws that force companies to pay higher wages mean, in the long run, people being poorer than they would otherwise be.

Unions depend not just on an exemption from anti-trust law, which in itsef is an anti-market intervention, but on state-imposed restrictions on businesses to give unions a monopoly over their workforces.

It's an extreme disruption in the economy, with all predictable consequences for productivity.

As for corporations and common law, that's a relatively minor deviation from the free market that would be almost entirely ameliorated by removing limited liability from tort cases.

>>As long as we're going to allow collective action by business owners, it's only fair that we allow collective action by workers.

Collective action is not the problem. Laws prohibiting employers from exercising their right to contract liberty and free association, to fire workers who unionize or strike, or to negotiate with workers not in a union, when a union has voted to collectively bargain, are the problem.

Like I said, the state gives unions a monopoly over any workforce in which they form. Giving a party a monopoly by restricting the contract rights of other parties is entirely different than "allowing" a monopoly to exist.

> state-imposed restrictions on businesses to give unions a monopoly over their workforces

That's not how all unions work. That is how the worst ones are implemented in the US, imo. eg govt unions, teacher's union, police union, NRLCA vs UFCW or Airline unions (eg https://www.swamedia.com/pages/contracts)

That's how laws relating to unions and collective bargaining and striking work. You cannot negotiate with other parties once the majority of your employees in a work unit vote to collectively bargain. That means the union gets a monopoly over who you can negotiate with.

Similarly, you cannot fire and replace unionized workers who strike, which again means the union is controlling your company and determining who you can employ.