> not only would they fire you but they'd call up all their industry buddies and you'd basically be on every other restaurants no-hire list.
So like a much-dreaded union for employers except it’s underhanded and illegal.
So like a much-dreaded union for employers except it’s underhanded and illegal.
And it’s underhanded and illegal when employers do it, because there’s an imbalance of power between employee and employee.
Unions exist to even out that balance of power. When employers engage in that kind of activity it further increases the imbalance of power.
For example, in this case, they were using that tactic to support their ability to steal from employees.
The employer is already a collective, "A business", and the hiring manager is operating with the full power of that collective in hiring/firing negotations.
A union is a collective to balance power against the business (collective).
A cartel is a collective of collectives (ie., a group of businesses) operating to defeat free market competition regulation, in this sense the cartel is balancing power against the state -- which is the only permitted "collective of collectives".
Cartels challenge states (power to create free markets), whereas unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire).
This is why unions are permissible and cartels are not.
If they're good or bad is another matter.
But a cartel is never required, since businesses competing with each other is the goal of a free market.
I would agree that if unions become more powerful than businesses, so it ends up single-business vs "union-of-unions" you can get the same effects.
Hopefully the asymmetry is clear though. Cartels are never permissible in a free market, but unions often are because of the need for labour to compete "on the same terms" as business.
ie., the mere existence of a union isnt a sign the market is non-free; whereas the mere existence of a cartel is.
It’s pretty clear what you think though.
First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free
This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.
Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.
The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union
By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states).
As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.).
A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.
I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most
Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
Neutrally, using the term "anarchical market", i'd say that these markets are empheral. Everyone them has to act against rules which are not in their self-interest, it's highly unclear why a subgroup of market participants wouldnt immediately collectivise and outcompete everyone else.
Collectivisation is human's superpower, and the obvious an immediate thing basically everyone does (hence: mafia, warlords, cartels, etc.). It would be remarkable to see this anarchical market of yours remain free for very long, so I'd gladly hear of one case.
The main mechanism against collectivisation is that some biggest baddest collective decides to prohibit it (hence the state). There may be others, but I can think of none that would operate under anarchical conditions.
The Hanseatic League. This was basically its own trade association across North Europe, based on maritime trade. It had considerable market/economic power, but no legislative power; most participants were city-states so they were self-reliant to a degree, but none of them had jurisdiction or power over the entire group.
> Hanseatic Cities gradually developed common trade regulations.
> That year, the merchants of the Hansa in Cologne convinced King Henry II of England to exempt them from all tolls in London[26] and to grant protection to merchants and goods throughout England.[27]: 14–17
> etc.
> By the mid-16th century, these weak connections left the Hanseatic League vulnerable, and it gradually unraveled as members became consolidated into other realms or departed, ultimately disintegrating in 1669.
So it looks like the league was parasitic on the relevant states involved being able to implement regulations, so, basically exactly the point i'm making.
And secondarily, insofar as the legague itself lacked a mechanism to enforce transnational agreeement, it was weak and collpased.
So QED: insofar as participating states had viable regulating mechanisms the system work; insofar as challenges arose which requrired transnational mechanisms, it fell apart.
Of course it matters what kind of regulation; it's also possible to regulate markets in a way that protects monopolies, and some governments do that. So it's important to have a government that understands the importance of a free market.
To give you some examples, the Dutch markets for health insurance and energy are entirely privatised but heavily regulated, and quite competitive. It's easy to switch from one provider to another, and so they compete hard on price. Although perhaps more so in the early days after privatisation than more recently.
On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised. Sometimes the EU makes moves to increase competition, but that's only piecemeal and not always terribly effective; Microsoft still rules the desktop, except in those areas where Apple now rules it.
Monopolization requires control of land or resources. This is because any cartel's attempt to set artificially high prices can be undercut by new entrants to the market who aren't in the cartel.
> On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised.
Software is monopolized primarily through regulated monopolies on software (re)production i.e. copyright.
It's not copyright that monopolises software, but api support. The need to reverse engineer other people's work. A lack of open standards. There would be more competition possible in software if regulation mandated open standards and open apis.
So no, you don't need control of land to enable monopolization. You don't need IP law either. There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization, and many of those factors do require some degree of regulation to mitigate them.
Although you could argue that corporations themselves are a government-created construct, and removing those would remove the problem. That could be true, but that's a very big step.
The threat of jail time for people sharing pirated copies or circumventing copyright protected measures changes the pros/cons people weigh whether or not some people copy or reverse engineer despite those risks. There would be a lot more competition if pirates weren't incurring all these additional risks and were able to compete fairly without state backed copyright monopolies.
> There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization
The primary driver is restricting competition. If your competition is unrestricted then why would they join your cartel when they can outcompete you? Someone will always see that they can get a larger piece of the pie by outcompeting the cartel. Monopolies always use force to prevent winning in fair competition.
Could you give examples of this happening? When the prices are low that sounds like a good outcome for their customers. Assuming the price drop doesn't affect other aspects customers care about like quality.
The problem is when prices are raised above what they would otherwise be in a competitive market. You phrased this as "once the newcomer is gone", but there isn't anything preventing another newcomer from emerging, or several. The action of raising prices is openly visible to the market. This will attract entrepreneurs to the industry as a result of the perceived success of the monopolistic firm. In other words greedily raising prices above what the market wants to pay is a suicidal move for a single firm that relies on its customers to continue to buy whatever it is selling. This opens a market opportunity for newcomers where it did not exist before the price hike as customers would be encouraged to look for an alternatives.
Monopolies backed by force are not reliant on their customers' voluntary decisions in this way so the analysis above only applies to situations that prevent forcing customers to choose a particular firm against their wishes.
> When the prices are low that sounds like a good outcome for their customers.
No, because it's only temporary. They only lower the price to drive the competitor out of business, and once they're out of business, they raise the prices again.
> there isn't anything preventing another newcomer from emerging
Yes there is: investment. If every newcomer goes out of business like that, that makes it a bad investment to enter that market. You are already at a disadvantage entering a new market because of the investment needed. If you then can't recoup those costs, there's not much point in even trying. And the established big players can and will drop their prices to run you out of business unless stopped by regulation. Your argument only works if you ignore investment costs necessary to enter a market.
There's literally more than a century of legal history behind this.
Perhaps one day we might see capitalism as an "iterated socialism" (ie., socialism as thought about if you include time in your imagination).
And communism, libertarianism, anarchism, etc. as all products of a time-free form of reasoning where you can just pause the world and imagine that all people will "run the same program".
Stability and guarantees from a strong central state really grease the wheels of commerce.
I would argue that it's good for the state to take some sort of interest in regulating them, one of several ways that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist.
But arguing that the formation of cartels makes a market non-free is backward. Cartels emerge through free association in trade. Regulating them might make for a more functional market, a more efficient market (or it might not) but it makes for a less free market, always.
I will add that I consider the very idea of "absence of the state" to be badly-formed, states vary considerably in their constitution but there's always something serving that role, even if it's a few elders in a village.
A cartel sets prices, and is one of the many ways markets are unfree.
There's a ton of confusion created by libertarian sorts who fail to distinguish between government regulation which sets prices, and regulation necessary for the operation of the market itself. Basically delusional ideologues have denied the latter exists, by just ignoring it.
If a government acts to set prices it makes a market non-free, just as much as if a cartel does so. "Free" cannot plausibly mean that a mafia is fine but a police force isnt.. and the claim that it does is just libertarian propaganda.
Governments which regulate markets so as to prevent cartels are acting to prevent the very sort of price-setting which "free" denotes does not occur
That's true, but cartels can't enforce this. New or external firms can compete with the cartel. If a cartel reduces production or raises prices then it incentivizes competitors to meet the market demand with lower prices. The only way the cartel can exclude new firms is by controlling the entirety of some resource or enforcing the cartel usually in the form of lobbying for regulations.
You're assuming also that the cartel is operating only "economically", not also, eg., bribing, blackmailing, (stealing, murdering, ...), ...potential competitors. Why not just invite any competitor into the cartel? Why not buy them out? Why not "make life difficult" for them?
The underlying assumption that "things wash out" requires supposing that an extremely simplistic newtonian model of an economy where politics doesnt really occur. But people are foremost political, ie., engaged in tribal behaviour, collectivising, using force, and so on. This doesnt "wash out".
It may not be in Ontario. In a free market (i.e. one that respects property rights) it would be worthwhile. To see why, let me take your objections one by one.
Bribing competitors: The point of a cartel is to use force to prevent competition. Successful firms who are outcompeting their peers don't need to rely on force in this way, and enacting force is costly. The cost of the bribes must be factored into the cartels bottom line rendering them less efficient at meeting the market's needs. On the other hand the cartels inefficiencies require that the bribed competitors are leaving money on the table by taking the bribe instead of competing.
Blackmailing competitors: This supposes that you have some illegal or taboo information that can be used to blackmail competitors. This method of force will not work for any firms you cannot find dirt on. The cost of acquiring the blackmail is another source of inefficiency in the cartel at meeting the market's needs.
Stealing: Property rights are required in order to have a free market. Corrupt courts or enforcement of laws can prevent free markets from forming in the real world. Preventing corruption of these privileged offices is a difficult problem and could use more research.
Murdering: This is a special case of stealing as people own their own bodies so murder deprives them of their property.
> The underlying assumption that "things wash out" requires supposing that an extremely simplistic newtonian model of an economy where politics doesnt really occur.
I wasn't trying to say that "things wash out" no matter what. My point was that the circumstances surrounding monopolies affect their ability to prevent competition. It's easy to see that when an industry is doing well it attracts new competitors. Analyzing the reasons competitors are not able to compete in monopolized industries is the best way to understand how to prevent monopolies.
Are there any states that don't forcefully take property and life without people's consent? States are well known for taxing their citizens and fighting wars.
There are certainly small communities that don't steal or murder from anyone, but scaling them up has many challenges. I'd argue cultural attitudes around property rights are more important to creating free societies than top down laws and enforcement. Obviously some legal framework and enforcement would be necessary.
Have you got any examples of this?
When I look at large unions where I am, it goes one of two ways. They get large and hopeless (teachers union and nurses union) or they get powerful enough that they can dictate such that they can make a meaningful change for their members.
I’ve seen some impressive conditioned earned by doctors unions, police unions and one I belonged to for allied health professionals.
None of them seem to be exoloiting their members, but I’m not sure how I’d find out about that.
Depending on the country, that varies from "totally illegal" to "well of course you're gonna solidarity strike, that's how it's done".
Which is kind of the problem with unions. If they stuck to negotiating pay levels while leaving businesses free to hire and fire who they see fit I think employers would be much more willing to work with them. Higher salary expenses are much less damaging to a business than not being able to fire incompetent workers.
The societal impact of this crime cannot be overstated. Billions of dollars stolen from workers, practically free of consequence.
Most companies use countless loopholes.
If you define being late with payments as theft, then I'd bet that rent theft is way larger than wage theft. I don't see why you would say that it is theft when you are late with payments to a worker but not theft when you are late with payments to a company.
If being late with payments isn't theft, then "wage theft" isn't theft, just like you missing to pay your rent one month isn't theft.
Those two are the same, a person who is late would typically never pay if they didn't get threatening mail to "remind" them.
Hot, hot, hot fucking garbage. When I was in college and broke, and struggled to make rent, I was KEENLY FUCKING AWARE I owed it. It was a fact that was on my mind 24 hours a day, including inducing stress nightmares about losing my place to live.
Just absolute, 100%, shit from a bull's ass. Bullshit, you might say. I dunno where in the world you got this notion, but as someone who spent a youth in the poverty grinder, allow me to dispel you of it. Fuck no. Rent NEVER left my mind, even when it WAS paid. Making my rent payment every month was what kept me going to work when sick, what kept me at work when my boss treated me like shit, etc. etc. etc. This notion that people "forget" rent is some of the most ludicrous bullshit I've ever heard in my fucking life.
I don't mean to personally attack, I don't know you, but I cannot fathom how you got this idea in your head if you've ever rented a place before that you had to personally pay for.
Edit: You see plenty of stories from company owners who worry if they can pay salaries next month and it is all they can think about, that is the kind of person you are calling a "wage thief" here, even though they just like you are just struggling and trying to make ends meet.
And even if they are, remind me where your constitutional right to a profitable business is? If paying your workers means you can't keep the lights on, then you can't keep the lights on. Too many even in this situation think the answer is "keep the lights on, before paying workers".
But highly profitable businesses (up to and including Apple) also commit wage theft. So please don't try to turn this into yet another "poor small business owners" trope.
This isnt "being late with payments" that is as you have correctly pointed out, not theft. "late" implies that eventually the wages are in fact paid. This is not what people are talking about when they are talking about wage theft.
People refuse to pay rent all the time unless you start to threaten legal action over it. We call that late payment, but they would never pay unless you went after them, just like these companies.
> This isnt "being late with payments"
"Being late with payments" doesn't mean they are late, it means they haven't paid you yet. That is equivalent to wage theft, we just call it "late" to make it seem like a lesser evil, and "theft" when corporations do it to make it seem worse than it is.
Of course some companies will never pay and will take you to court over it, but I don't see why you should lump all of that into a giant number alongside the very benign cases.
If you rent an apartment and agreed to pay 3000 a month for it and instead only pay 2500 a month you would be taken to court and lose the case. If an employer did the same it would be "a civil matter" having seen this firsthand I can attest to the truth of this.
Both of those are decided in civil court, I don't see the difference.
We had what we thought were the dream landlords. They kept our rent low because we kept their property in good condition and we were tenants for literally a decade. I mowed both sides of the property, too, so they wouldn't need to service it. I replaced outlets, I was on-time with rent every single month.
Then they wanted out of the business. We were harangued constantly by their real estate agent to arrange tours of the property, oftentimes without the requisite 24-hour notice by our states law. We had to allow strangers THROUGH OUR HOME routinely for a month. Then they sold the property, and the new owners increased rent by the maximum legal amount the next month, almost $400 at the time, fully intending to continue increasing it until it was at "market rate" which essentially doubled our rent over the course of the next few months.
Thankfully my parents were in a particularly great position having had a windfall from a family member passing away, and they helped us a great deal in completing our savings for a down payment several years ahead of schedule, and helping us pay off some ancillary debt to give our credit score a shot in the arm. We managed to buy a home thanks to them and I will live in a fucking cardboard box before I kiss some landlord's ring again.
Fuck em.
Ah. You're a landlord. That explains a lot.
All the bemoaning and bitching I've ever heard from you lot has one answer: If it's so fucking bad, then sell your excess properties to people who actually want to live in them and leave the business. No one forced you to buy more housing/commercial space than you needed. You did that, because you wanted to profit from it while doing no work. In that lens, I hope it sucks for you. I hope you have problems every day from your tenants, from your buildings. I hope they hold you feet to the fire over every last problem they have with every ounce of legal leeway given them. I hope you're miserable.
And I hope all of this because nobody made you get into that business and you're free to leave it at any time.
To suffer the indignity of collecting rent by sitting on property. How do you live like that?
- They must use the court system, and do so probably without legal representation unless they can find a lawyer willing to work pro-bono. This requires time and money
- At the same time they’re almost certainly job hunting because while retaliation is (sometimes) illegal, it’s trivially easy for businesses to cite other bullshit reasons for firing people and be entirely in the clear, because that’s even harder to prove in court than wage theft
- If they do manage both of those, they now have a documented history of fighting for their rights as workers, and bosses do not like that. It makes them inherently riskier to hire.
Source: wife worked as a credit controller.
At worst, you won't get a positive recommendation from an employer like this if somebody calls and asks. The idea that employers are busy maintaining "no-hire lists" and collecting names from all of their industry peers doesn't hold up, at least not outside of maybe weird small-town social bubbles.
However, in a small town, business owners may warn each other, and in a small bubble of companies, they may talk to each other.
And if you need a reference, better pick a fellow employee. Other than that, ignore the boogeyman!
For my part, the fired workers that were added to the list had been escorted out by police or wheeled out by EMTs after causing property damage and physical harm to other employees. I didn't think much about it at the time. I was young and foolish and happy to have been promoted off the call center floor into management.
I think the list had started a decade earlier for sharing across sister companies. My local company had been acquired by a larger foreign company which had several US subsidiaries in similar businesses, one of which was just the other side of the river from us. I think they first shared the list amongst themselves which despite them being different companies, is almost "internal", but eventually they started sharing it with another Austin business with a large call center over on Mopac that shared a bunch of workers across different shifts. They'd work for us during the day calling businesses and work theirs at night calling residential. Then a third company joined and I wouldn't be surprised if they shared it even more broadly after I left, but by then I suspect most of the phone workers in Austin were covered at that point.
But it’s not like the small-town social bubble of West Coast software development is a stranger to collusion. What was that thing again? Apple and some other giant tech companies colluding on wages? Well, it was on HN a few times at least. I don’t remember the details.
There were two other companies we regularly swapped low-skill call center workers with and the management teams of all three, I was on one, shared a list of disruptive and dangerous workers we'd had to fire and discouraged any of the three firms to hire. On our end, the list was in Lotus Notes and it was someone's job to make sure it integrated updates from the other call centers.
That was the late 90s and the list sharing started in the late 80s before I got there but it was one of the thing you learned about when you got promoted to management, check the list before the interview!
I started out on the phones and had many friends still on the floor when I got promoted, so learning about the list was a little bit disturbing, but the names I recognized on it from my time in our call center, had been escorted out by the police or carried out by EMTs.
That firm was wild. We literally took on 20 guys from the child sexual abuse convict halfway house to work the phones. Only half made the cut after the trial period and only three of them stayed on more than a few months, and those three were quite good, one making the "CEO" team which was the highly capable group that could hold a CEO on the phone for a 45 minute interview about, for example, printers and multi-function devices conducted on behalf of Dell Computers to see if they were making any headway eating into HP printer sales or whatever.
My point is that back in the '90s lists you say don't exist absolutely did. I not only knew of one, I used it, added to it, and I have every confidence that two other companies employing the same kind of people were using it as well.
(This to point out that most lobbies are to employers what unions are to employees)
An interjection: Under GDPR this is illegal. (Just a reminder that "tech" legislation sometimes also improve on broader levels)
I see a lot of US websites with annoying GDPR popups and they really don't need to do that over here.