|
|
|
|
|
|
by barry-cotter
1251 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.