Comment by wrong_variable | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wrong_variable | Hacker News Reader

What is frustrating is the problem can be attacked even without introducing any new law.

In many industries the reason employers have monopsopy power is regulations that prevents new players from eating the fat profit margins of incumbent players.

telecom, healthcare, real estate, legal services ......

Just like coders see every problem as a software problem - lawmakers tend to think any problem can be solved with more laws ! not realizing they are also playing the economic game theory charade.

In this case particularly, introducing more laws is going to make is harder for new players from gaining market share.

I am not also just making this up, France has some of the most progressive labor laws written with the best of intentions - but lawmakers failed to see the economical ramification of their laws. It made employers reluctant to hire full time workers - creating a painfully high unemployment rate.

A lot of American multinationals also have most of their growth happening outside US borders, I think stronger Unions and ill thought out reform is going to result in more aggresive offshoring.

I know supply side economic arguments has gone out of fashion - but by allowing entrepreneurs to more easily embrace globalization the same way as larger companies exploit it will more comfortably increase income without causing massive spikes in inflation.

This also includes less regulation so that workers can strike without legal trouble and cause trouble for employers, by dragging the process through the court system will just mean more money for lawyers - and large companies have deep pockets anyway to fight any potential lawsuit. Think about how things like fraud are already illegal but companies seem to get away with it anyway.

The only power labor has to collective withdraw it - which painfully show up in the balance sheet in every board room, its the only language capital understands.

We don't need any new laws.

We just need to get the union-busting right-to-work laws off the books, and let the free market sort things out.

Right to work laws are a restriction of free, voluntary contracts between employers, and their employees. They forbid employees from demanding to be a sole supplier of labor for an employer, and from negotiating special, union-only employee agreements.

It's absurd that someone selling cabbages to a grocery store is allowed to enter into a mutually voluntary contract that makes them the sole supplier of leafy greens for that grocery, but the people working for that store are not allowed to enter into a mutually voluntary contract that makes them the sole supplier of labor for that store.

Given the vicious opposition of business leaders against the freedom of workers to enter into meaningful collective bargaining agreements, it's clear that they are not actually interested in free markets.

I don't understand why Right to work laws are bad, maybe you can explain. If I am looking for a job at a company and I don't agree with the unions politics, high fees, etc. and I would like to make the contract between me and my employer by myself, what is wrong with that. Why should I be forced to join a union? Or more specifically, why should I be forced to join a specific union? What if that union wont let me join because I support Republicans?

You mentioned letting the free market sort things out. That is exactly what Right to work laws do. They let two independent people make an employment agreement without anything interfering with them. If the union was good and worthwhile, the employees would join. If the unions were good then employees who were not part of the union would be paid less and get less benefits. If that is not the case then that union is not a good one and should not force workers to join it.

> If I am looking for a job at a company and I don't agree with the unions politics, high fees, etc. and I would like to make the contract between me and my employer by myself, what is wrong with that.

That employer already entered a contract with another group of people, that lists them as a sole supplier of labour for said employer.

Imagine if I had a cabbage farm. I don't care about corporate politics, I just want Whole Foods to buy cabbages from me.

But they won't. They already have an exclusive supplier contract for cabbages with Dole, or Sunrise Produce, or whatever.

Is this unfair? I don't like it? That's my problem. I should not be demanding that there be a law that forbids sole suppliers, of cabbages, or labour.

If I still want to sell cabbages, I should talk to Dole, Sunrise Produce, or start my own grocery store. Or negotiate a new contract with Whole Foods, after their current contract expires.

Providing services to an organization isn't a god-given right. If you don't like the working environment, the requirements of the job, the pay, or the hoops you have to jump through to sell to a company, that's your problem. Go work for a non-union shop, or start your own company.

> They let two independent people make an employment agreement without anything interfering with them.

If one of those two people entered into an agreement with a third party, that lists the third party as a sole supplier of services for them, that's your problem. The law should allow that person to make such an agreement with said third party, to the detriment of you.

That's the libertarian response. They are bad because they stop people from entering into voluntary contracts.

The socialist argument is that they are bad because employment negotiation is not done on a person-to person level. It is done on an organization to person level. The organization has more power, and this power imbalance produces unfair contracts.

This imbalance is solved when you allow employees to negotiate as an organization. Right to work laws let scabs and freeloaders parasitically leech off the negotiations of others, without paying into the system that benefits them. The only way to deal with that is to exclude them.

So if I understand correctly all that the right to work laws do is forbid companies from making a contract that requires them to hire exclusively from one union. I was under the impression that a majority of the workers of a company can unionise and then require every other worker in the company to join the union.

If you are correct then I can see why right to work laws are not so good. However, keep in mind that there are many laws preventing people from entering certain contracts. Such as laws forbidding a person to work at a company if the company doesn't want to pay minimum wage, or offering to give someone some money but requiring that they pay back a large amount in a set amount of time.

Almost! They do two things.

1. Make it illegal to have an exclusivity contract.

2. Make every concession that a union gets out of their employer apply to non-union employees. [1]

This would be like Dole getting a special deal with Whole Foods... And a "Right-to-sell" law would mandate that the terms of that agreement would also apply to me - even though I was not a party to those negotiations.

> I was under the impression that a majority of the workers of a company can unionise and then require every other worker in the company to join the union.

That would be the case in a truly free market, if the employer entered into an agreement with the union that going forward, it would only employ union people. The employer's not compelled to do that - it does so by choice.

> If you are correct then I can see why right to work laws are not so good. However, keep in mind that there are many laws preventing people from entering certain contracts. Such as laws forbidding a person to work at a company if the company doesn't want to pay minimum wage, or offering to give someone some money but requiring that they pay back a large amount in a set amount of time.

I agree. You have rights, some of which you can't sign away - for instance, it would be illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, despite the existence of a contract to the contrary. Contracts aren't entirely absolute, and this gets complicated quickly. There's also questions of monopolies, which libertarians generally do not oppose, but other people do.

[1] The obvious consequence is that the game-theory optimal strategy for everyone is to not join a union.

That you for taking the time to explain. If true I can see why RtW laws are criticised. Can you link to a source about point 2?

That would be the Exclusive Representation rule.

https://www.flra.gov/exclusive_representation

http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/elr/lr/collective-bargaining/ee_re...

The tl;dr of it is that if 50% + 1 of a workforce unionizes, the union bargains collectively for everyone. Even for free-loaders who don't pay union dues.

This is like being able to opt out of paying taxes, while still receiving all government benefits. If that were legal, then our public services would collapse by next week.

Thank you for the information. I don't understand legalese that well (many colloquial things mean something different in legalese) so I will take your word for it. That changes my view on RtW

You obviously didn't read the article and appear to be just spouting talking points. The three laws proposed in no way impede small businesses. Prohibiting anti-poaching , Limiting non-competes, and considering the labor market effects of mergers will primarily impact large businesses.

In fact, all those changes reduce friction and increase competition in the labor market. These should be precisely the kind of changes I would think you would support?

I wonder if non-compete agreements actually matter. I mean, come on. Lewandowski landed at Uber after Google. Does anyone cares if some dude from burger king will join KFC? Will BKing really sue him?

Probably not, but he would not dare join KFC for the fear that Burger King decides to sue him. Even if he wins the case, he will go bankrupt navigating the court.

And KFC would include a question on their hiring form "Are you subject to a non-compete clause?" to cover their asses. If he answers yes, he is immediately disqualified and KFC moves to the next candidate. After all, it's not like he has unique knowledge for which it is worth getting sued over, unlike Lewandowski. If he answers no and it is ever discovered he had lied, he is immediately fired.

- The article strongly highlights lack of union membership.

- Warren is interested in introducing laws.

- I do not agree regarding M and A - so what if companies want to combine capital ? If Labor can also combine more freely then I do not see the problem.

Who decides what is the correct size of a company ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com