• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are Unions considered Anti-Capitalistic?

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why are unions considered anti-capitalistic or socialistic? I've never understood that, or the reasoning behind it. Unions are workers controlling their collective capital - i.e. their labor. Why do conservatives consider this socialistic?
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unions are very much capitalistic. It's a group of workers who chose to come together just as a corporation is a group of investers that chose to cone together.

I think people are against unions don't like tge taste of their own medicine.

It puts power in the hands of the worker.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why are unions considered anti-capitalistic or socialistic? I've never understood that, or the reasoning behind it. Unions are workers controlling their collective capital - i.e. their labor. Why do conservatives consider this socialistic?
It's a monopoly on labor and it should be illegal like all other monopolies.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's a monopoly on labor and it should be illegal like all other monopolies.

Monopolies shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Government created monopolies are the bigger problem and the most threat.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Monopolies shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Government created monopolies are the bigger problem and the most threat.
True enough but if we're going to be consistent with these things, laws against monopolies should apply to all businesses.
Unions get a pass, as well as, having the law force the business to negotiate with them.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
How is a union a monopoly? Couldn't a contractor employee less skilled employees?
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't see how a union is a monopoly though. All a union does is give the employer a choice of do what they say or everyone quits.

If an employer doesn't like it they can let them be on their way and hire new people or conform.

Labor will always be there with or without the union.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How is a union a monopoly? Couldn't a contractor employee less skilled employees?
Between a business and the union proper, the business has to contract with the union.
It cannot choose to not employ workers from that union.

From the business standpoint it's a monopoly on labor.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Between a business and the union proper, the business has to contract with the union.
It cannot choose to not employ workers from that union.

From the business standpoint it's a monopoly on labor.
From a business standpoint the consumer is a monopoly on revenue lol

Your point is disingenuous at best. Nor does it address the socialistic aspect of my OP, many conservatives use unions in the same breath with marxism. I fail to see why unions are not capitalistic.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
i always thought they were what free-marketeers wanted, they are the natural result of free market forces, same as businesses merging, only it is the workers merging.

the socialist aspect of it is that you have people joining together for mutual benefit, which is decidedly anti-capitalistic.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
From a business standpoint the consumer is a monopoly on revenue lol

Your point is disingenuous at best. Nor does it address the socialistic aspect of my OP, many conservatives use unions in the same breath with marxism. I fail to see why unions are not capitalistic.
A union by it's very nature isn't anti capitalist.
When employed with the legal monopolistic protection, it is.

A consumer is a single person, they are the buyer not the seller.
Now if all consumers were grouped together and they all dictated a universal price, of what they would buy a product at, that would be a monopsony.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think it's their maker who cursed them with the label, Karl Marx. Marx contrived the notion of unions, however he imagined the whole as a union, not the part. A productive capitalist dislikes competition, in all areas, so branding the union as a negative is logical, though misleading.

However that said, I cannot understand why learned conservatives still repeat the lie.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
i always thought they were what free-marketeers wanted, they are the natural result of free market forces, same as businesses merging, only it is the workers merging.

the socialist aspect of it is that you have people joining together for mutual benefit, which is decidedly anti-capitalistic.
Alone, without special legal protection, there is nothing wrong with it at all.
In that scenario, if the union demands were to much, the business could seek labor else where.

With a legal monopoly, the business is forced to buy from a monopoly.
Businesses don't naturally monopolize without outside force, primarily government privilege.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
A union by it's very nature isn't anti capitalist.
When employed with the legal monopolistic protection, it is.

A consumer is a single person, they are the buyer not the seller.
Now if all consumers were grouped together and they all dictated a universal price, of what they would buy a product at, that would be a monopsony.
I'm not sure how a boycott is anti-capitalistic? Or why the market can force the buyer to do anything - at all - outside sell.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unions put power in the hands of the worker. There is power in numbers. The Elite are a minority and fear it. They want the ability to exploit workers.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A boycott isn't anti capitalistic.

A labor strike, were the business cannot buy labor outside those who are striking, is.

But that business chose to sign a contract with that union.

If they don't like it. Don't sign the contract. Hire only non union workers. If all tge workers joined the union then tough ****.

Unless I'm missing something which I may be.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
A boycott isn't anti capitalistic.

A labor strike, were the business cannot buy labor outside those who are striking, is.
Huh?

A strike is the suspension of good until the goods increase in price. If a farmer stores his grain in an attempt to pass a over supplied market of grain, then he is smartly using his capital (the grain). In a free market the farmer is not beholden to put his goods instantly on the market?

Why should labor be treated differently?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unions put power in the hands of the worker. There is power in numbers. The Elite are a minority and fear it. They want the ability to exploit workers.
There is a balance of power that should be maintained.
Neither the worker, nor the business have a long term advantage; by retaining to much power over the other.

Contrary to popular belief, a business has it in it's best interest to negotiate with union of workers to meet at a good middle ground.
When the union has most or all the power, the business will fight it tooth and nail, because the union will attempt to exploit the business.

Coming to a reasonable compromise, where all parties benefit, is mutual aid.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But that business chose to sign a contract with that union.

If they don't like it. Don't sign the contract. Hire only non union workers. If all tge workers joined the union then tough ****.

Unless I'm missing something which I may be.
A business can not legally do that in a lot of places.
They have to hire only union workers.

Huh?

A strike is the suspension of good until the goods increase in price. If a farmer stores his grain in an attempt to pass a over supplied market of grain, then he is smartly using his capital (the grain). In a free market the farmer is not beholden to put his goods instantly on the market?

Why should labor be treated differently?
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.

Boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strike action, often simply called a strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances.

Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There is a balance of power that should be maintained.
Neither the worker, nor the business have a long term advantage; by retaining to much power over the other.

Contrary to popular belief, a business has it in it's best interest to negotiate with union of workers to meet at a good middle ground.
When the union has most or all the power, the business will fight it tooth and nail, because the union will attempt to exploit the business.

Coming to a reasonable compromise, where all parties benefit, is mutual aid.
Are you sure you are a libertarian? Why would the free market require a balance? And why is a union beholden to any business? If their is capital (i.e. pay) to be had, should the union try to secure it with their goods (i.e.) labor?

What you are suggesting is that a farmer not try to gain more land.

If the farmer has more land, he produces more product. If a labor union has more workers it produces more capital. If the farmer acquires too much land, the demand for the land would exceed his product. Thus he'd sell.

If the union acquires too much labor, and demands too much, the union would be forced to lower it's wages.

Why not let the free market deal with unions?
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.

Boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strike action, often simply called a strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances.

Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mammal to cat. Your point?
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Are you sure you are a libertarian? Why would the free market require a balance? And why is a union beholden to any business? If their is capital (i.e. pay) to be had, should the union try to secure it with their goods (i.e.) labor?
A free market requires a balance of power, a level playing field.
An arena where no person has greater legal privilege over another.

What you are suggesting is that a farmer not try to gain more land.

If the farmer has more land, he produces more product. If a labor union has more workers it produces more capital. If the farmer acquires too much land, the demand for the land would exceed his product. Thus he'd sell.
If the farmer holds a gun to the seller of the land and forces him to hand it over for an incredibly low price, no.

Production for the sake of production, isn't productive.
The farmer has to know that it's worth making all that extra, otherwise it will go to waste and rot in the barn.

If the union acquires too much labor, and demands too much, the union would be forced to lower it's wages.

Why not let the free market deal with unions?
That's not how it has been working though.
If a union weren't allowed special monopoly privilege, your example would happen.
Since it has special legal protection, the union is free to exploit the business.
 

Olak

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
34
Reaction score
16
Location
Chelsea, NYC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
A free market requires a balance of power, a level playing field.
An arena where no person has greater legal privilege over another.
How is the balance constructed if legality is not involved.

My points are towards a neutral arena, you seem to be focusing on some sort of specter of governance, is this the root of the opinion that creates the idea that unions are socialistic?

Originally Posted by Olak
What you are suggesting is that a farmer not try to gain more land.


If the farmer holds a gun to the seller of the land and forces him to hand it over for an incredibly low price, no.
Why is their a gun? Why do you equate a strike with a gun?

Production for the sake of production, isn't productive.
The farmer has to know that it's worth making all that extra, otherwise it will go to waste and rot in the barn.
Which was my point? Are you reading my post? That's why a labor union can't be forceful, their capital - labor - will rot, and they will go hungry.

Why not let the free market deal with unions?
That's not how it has been working though.
If a union weren't allowed special monopoly privilege, your example would happen.
Since it has special legal protection, the union is free to exploit the business.
I think this is the root of your argument, can you expound on it, and point to special privileges. Are these privileges any more gainful than the legal fruits that corporations pluck?
 
Top Bottom