[ineedasername]

Amazon is free to refuse to sign any contract with the union that doesn't leave them with their desired level of profitability. Forming a union doesn't change that.

Amazon undercuts competitors and plays hard ball with suppliers literally every day. That's business, that's life. I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves.

[chordalkeyboard]

> I don't see why workers shouldn't take their opportunity to engage in tough negotiations with Amazon themselves.

Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value because of moral hazards, perverse incentives, and agent-principal problems.

[danShumway]

These kinds of arguments are only ever applied to workers.

Nobody argues that a company having a single legal team that represents all of its managers and sets org-wide hiring policies is anti-efficiency. If you negotiate with a publicly traded company, you are engaging in collective bargaining, because public companies are collectives that represent the multiple interests of multiple stakeholders during negotiations.

Nobody argues that companies are anti-value because they restrict my freedom to negotiate a separate contract with every single member of the company's board. But suddenly it's different if the workers do the same thing.

[chordalkeyboard]

> These kinds of arguments are only ever applied to workers.

Nonsense, people insisted that it was foolish to require bundling of routine insurance with catastrophic insurance, people advocate for the severability of hardward and operating systems, people oppose forced bundling of insurance and all kinds of other goods.

> Nobody argues that a company having a single legal team that represents all of its managers and sets org-wide hiring policies is anti-efficiency.

They would however observe that that single legal team only protects the company, and that each employee should have their own, individual legal representation for their own personal liability.

> If you negotiate with a publicly traded company, you are engaging in collective bargaining, because public companies are collectives that represent the multiple interests of multiple stakeholders during negotiations.

This doesn’t offer a counterpoint to my point.

> Nobody argues that companies are anti-value because they restrict my freedom to negotiate a separate contract with every single member of the company's board. But suddenly it's different if the workers do the same thing.

I think the comparison here has been twisted so far beyond the breaking point that there is no need of a rebuttal.

[danShumway]

> people insisted that it was foolish to require bundling of routine insurance with catastrophic insurance, people advocate for the severability of hardware and operating systems, people oppose forced bundling of insurance and all kinds of other goods.

None of that is collective bargaining.

> This doesn’t offer a counterpoint to my point.

One comment earlier: "Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value"

[chordalkeyboard]

> None of that is collective bargaining.

Neither were your examples.

> One comment earlier: "Because collective bargaining results in a net decrease in value"

That point still stands.

[ineedasername]

That's a lot of those buzzwords that do not address the question of why negotiating for labor resources should be any different than some other resources the company needs.

What's more, all of those buzzwords can apply to the relationship between any other supplier as well. In addition, corporations are themselves a highly collected bargaining unit. They may nominally be a single entity, but they represent the financial interests of many people.

[joshspankit]

Clearly the people behind this anti-union website disagree with you.