[Discuss] [OT] unions

[Tom Metro]

Mark Woodward wrote:
> ...the union in my view was a positive force for his industry.

I think capitalism is at its best when you hit upon the right set of
rules that result in self-regulating systems. From an abstract, academic
perspective, the aspect of unions that feels wrong is that they are
effectively a monopoly for labor.

In essence (but not really) a union is an employee owned corporation
whose sole service is outsourced labor. In an idealized market, there
should be multiple labor corporations for any given type of labor, not
only one.

This sort of competition would provide not only choice for the companies
seeking to buy labor (and blunting all their arguments that *the* union
was strong-arming them), but also choice for the workers, giving the
unions incentive to compete to offer better employee benefits.

This approach would naturally result in smaller unions, which would be
less powerful, and thus also less susceptible to corruption.

Which also leads to the flaw in this approach. If you've got a bunch of
local "labor corporations" competing to get a contract from WalMart for
their MA stores, they're going to be at a distinct disadvantage going up
against an international conglomerate.

And if the "labor corporations" tried to decide among themselves some
set of minimum terms they all will require, then they'd probably end up
being sued by the FTC for collusion.

If it could be made to work, there could be other benefits to this
model. The union would provide your benefits and be your HR department.
Things like retirement and health insurance would have continuity
independent of your employer of the moment. And the variables being
negotiated between the union and the buyer of labor would be
considerably reduced.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/