[yummyfajitas]

And we also need to acknowledge that the management in a company invariably enjoys collective bargaining rights...

No, it's illegal for corporations to collectively bargain to set workers wages. On the flip side, if employees unionize, it's illegal for the employer to refuse to do business with them.

[emmett]

I think you may have reacted to what you thought he said here, rather than what he said.

The management within a company (considered as a class, rather than as a singular entity "the company") does indeed bargain collectively with the workers of that company. That doesn't imply they collude with the management of other companies.

I'm not sure what the consequences of that are, exactly. It does mean that it's very hard to get teams within the same company to bid on you, because they will collude to avoid that.

So I think you missed his point. I'm not sure that changes the truth of your main point, which is that the government supports employee unions and discourages corporate ones.

Though the illegality of corporations bargaining collectively doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and the illegality of suppressing unions doesn't mean that doesn't happen either. And it's pretty clear who has more leverage in the labor market: corporations. Replacing a worker is annoying but the corporation can usually afford to do without for a few months, whereas losing your job for even a short while can be devastating.

This effect leads to an effective monopsony situation for most employers.

But I've digressed from my main point, which is that while you're correct, I think what he actually said is much more interesting than the boringly wrong point you replied to. What effect DOES it have that the management of a company is united, and the workers generally divided without a union?

[yummyfajitas]

The management within a company (considered as a class, rather than as a singular entity "the company") does indeed bargain collectively with the workers of that company.

If that's what he meant, I have no dispute. But, like you say, I can't see how that matters.

And it's pretty clear who has more leverage in the labor market: corporations. Replacing a worker is annoying but the corporation can usually afford to do without for a few months, whereas losing your job for even a short while can be devastating.

I don't think this is clear. Losing your job for a while can be devastating if you haven't planned for it, but the same is true of an unprepared company losing a valuable employee. Some empirics are necessary.

Also, it's only an effective monopsony if workers are incapable of searching for other work while they are employed.

[intended]

Individual company's management != collective bargaining by corporations.

[mwhite]

s/management/middle management