[jansen]

Good start! I just wish this change would be happening for the right reasons, e.g. that privately held prisons are creating a false incentive, an incentive to be more profitable by having more prisoners and thus the creation of a lobby for such thing.

[tptacek]

If you look, I think you'll find very little evidence of that actually happening. Further, state-run prisons create as much if not more incentive, in the form of public sector unions.

[r_smart]

It is curious how overlooked the money unions dump into lobbying is. They are spending massive amounts of money lobbying DC, but nobody seems to talk about it. The people that complain about companies who run private prisons lobbying congress never have a thought for say, the corrections officers' union, doing the same. Why?

[wfo]

Unions generally represent a large collection of human beings who all donate a small fixed amount as dues, and are usually quasi-democratic. That is, unions closer resemble the expression of the will of actual people, whereas non-union corporate lobbying represents the interests of a single corporate leader choosing to spend a huge amount of money to obtain influence in the democratic process wildly out of proportion to his actual vote.

A teacher's union lobbying is acting in the interest of millions of American teachers. An oil company lobbying is acting in the interest of the CEO of the oil company.

[vonmoltke]

> A teacher's union lobbying is acting in the interest of millions of American teachers. An oil company lobbying is acting in the interest of the CEO of the oil company.

Both are incorrect characterizations. In theory, the actions of a union represent the interests of its members and the actions of a corporation represent the actions of its shareholders. In practice, the actions of both represent their boards' interpretation of what their members/shareholders want and what they think is in the best interests of their corporations[1]. Neither represents either the collective will of all its members or the whims of a single person.

[1] Unions in the US are 501(c) corporations and so have similar governing structures.

[wfo]

Not true; they are quite correct characterizations.

In theory, union officials are elected by the members of the union. In practice, union officials are elected by the members of the union. In theory, the head of a corporation is the head of a corporation and may do whatever he likes so long as he and a small cabal of directors wish. In practice, the very few executives at the top of a large corporation run it like a dictatorship, and they primarily serve their own interests -- not the interests of the employees or the shareholders. And even when they do act in the interest of shareholders, that's simply a code word for "a tiny group of wealthy elites" -- shareholders are wealth holders, so invariably even the most honest and earnest CEO will be acting in the interest of large amounts of wealth (oligarchy), not large amounts of people (democracy).

[r_smart]

The CEO of an oil company represents all of the people that work for that company, and the many people who are investors in that company (often including pension funds, which are beholden to those same teachers in the union). It's disingenuous to act like the CEO's interests are the only ones involved in a corporation's lobbying. Indeed, CEOs are often voted out of companies by the board.

Are businesses less democratic that unions? Almost certainly. Does that change whether or not their actions are moral? I would argue not. My step-father was a in a union for a long time, and spent time as an officer for the union. He didn't have much great to say about it.

[dragonwriter]

CEOs and management in general, represents the firms owners, not it's employees except to the extent that the employees happen to be owners.

[r_smart]

Sorry, I meant it to mean that the CEO represents the interests of the employees in that the employees do well as the company does well. Yeah, they get less of the yield than those at the top, but if the company isn't doing well it puts downward pressure on all of their careers. Presumably the employees are there because they support, or are at least neutral, to the goals of the company, and thus share an interest. If they oppose the goals of the business, while I can understand why they might take a job there, I would still argue it's an ethical lapse.