Re:Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]
by Supermancho on Sunday August 04, 2019 @01:53AM
(#20604652)
> 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)
Re:Amazon's Anti-Union Training Video [video]
by CryptoPunk on Sunday August 04, 2019 @08:23AM
(#20606059)
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.
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.