[barry-cotter]

Yes and no. So in both cases the aim is to act as a labour cartel to redistribute economic surplus from either consumers, firms or potential competition to insiders. But US labour law makes co-determination illegal. Having a company approved union is forbidden. Cooperation between firm management and union management is forbidden. Everything must be adversarial all the time. In reality like everything else it’s fractally complex. US unions vary from ones like the UAW that are about money and benefits to journalist unions that are more concerned with ideological correctness. There are states where union shops are legal and there are right to work states. In Europe you have let’s strike at the slightest provocation, all the time countries like France, ones where firm management and union management work hand in glove like Germany and countries where unions are close to dead except for state employees like Ireland or Britain.

[WastingMyTime89]

> So in both cases the aim is to act as a labour cartel to redistribute economic surplus from either consumers, firms or potential competition to insiders.

After reading that, you can safely ignore any comments for this person regarding European unions. I can guarantee you it’s an American and they have no idea of what they are talking about.

Unions in Europe have little to do with their American counterparts. Membership is never compulsory to begin with. They are just representative of labour for negotiations. Part of their role is actually mandated by the state. For example, minimum salaries for each roles here is set by bilateral agreements between the biggest employers and employees unions.

They play their role fairly well and nearly never strike. Calling them a cartel is beyond ridiculous.

[barry-cotter]

I’m Irish. Having studied Economics does not make me an American. Economic surplus can either go to consumers in the form of lower prices, the firm’s owners in profits or current workers in wages. As

> representative of labour for negotiations

in your words they try to get as much of the economic surplus for themselves as possible. They can do this with a long time horizon like German unions where there’s s consideration that you want the company to still be around in 30 years so your child has the option to work there or American style give me all your money right now short termism.

Cartel isn’t a term of abuse. It’s a description of the entire point of a union. They monopolise labour and negotiate with employers to the benefit of the average worker. The less like the average worker you are the less well they’re going to represent you.

[WastingMyTime89]

> I’m Irish. Having studied Economics does not make me an American. Economic surplus can either go to consumers in the form of lower prices, the firm’s owners in profits or current workers in wages.

Don’t worry I studied economics too.

You are confusing value added and economic surplus. That doesn’t bode well for the rest of your argument.

A change in labour costs is a shift in the equilibrium point. It doesn’t come from a surplus.

> Cartel isn’t a term of abuse. It’s a description of the entire point of a union. They monopolise labour and negotiate with employers to the benefit of the average worker.

Of course it is a term of abuse.

Collective representation isn’t about monopolising labour as a casual glance to any union in a western country like France would have told you. In France no union has more than a measly 2% of the work force. Yet they play an important role.

[prox]

I watched this interesting discussion, suffice to say there seem to be a big difference between to two. Roles of the unions seems so vastly different, they might as well use separate words.