Quote:
|
When the Unions control production, most of the politicians, and can force huge wages and benefits for themselves, (far beyond the scale of non-union workers), then it's certainly NOT free market capitalism, anymore.
|
Quote:
|
When global corporations control production, most of the politicians, and can force low wages and benefits for their industry, (far beyond the scale of independent companies), then it's certainly NOT free market capitalism, anymore.
|
Apparently, clubbing together resources and influence in order to take control of an entire industry is socialism if those doing it are also those who work in that industry, but free market capitalism if those doing it are the employers in that industry. Ok, I will go with that to a degree, since one of the key notions of socialist communism is that the workers should own the means of production (not that they do in this scenario, but they have been able to exert control over entry to that production). But why is it ok for the employer class to club together into ever larger and more powerful organisations that give them much greater levels of control over every aspect of their industry (and indeed the economic and political system in which it takes place), and dictate wage levels that cripple whole communities, states, countries in order to defend their own interests; but it is not ok that the workforce engage in combination to defend their interests?
If workers enter into the market as 'free agents' with their labour and skills as their property to bargain with, why shouldn't they have the freedom to combine their strength in order to have a stronger property in the market? The corporation/business is owned by someone and they have a right to engage in combination with other corporations/businesses to strengthen their property and value in the market. Unions do not rob them of the value of their property, they defend the value of their own.