[lovich]

The capital tied up in any given business is colluding by definition because it moves in lock step. You don’t have multiple managers in a single org making conflicting business deals or bids with workers(for the most part, I’ve heard of a few companies organized this way). Hell even having multiple investors in a single company is collusion of capital owners when the company makes any sort of business deal.

Unions are just the workers colluding in the same fashion to increase their negotiating power

[padastra]

Strongly disagree.

Whether you give me capital at a 1% interest rate of a 50% interest rate; whether you buy 1% of my company for $1,000 or 1% of my company for $100,000,000; are independently determined by each provider of capital. Collusion would be all banks working together to only provide me a loan for 30% interest even if it's obvious I can pay it back.

The use of capital is irrelevant to the question of collusion for providing capital. That's like saying all the workers on a factory line are inherently already colluding because they work towards producing the same car.

[lovich]

The amount invested in the company is provided by each separate investor, but those investors do not then negotiate separate deals with each worker. The investors “collude” together to creat the business and have greater negotiating power than they would on their own.

A union is merely the labor version of joining together to increase leverage and is not any special level of collusion greater than the investors is what I am getting at

And yes saying the workers are colluding because they are working on the same car is what’s happening if you are going to call banding together to negotiate rates is colluding. There is non union labor and other unions