> >> >> This is NOT some "theological" faith thing. This is
> >> >> about real people in real courts fighting over real
> >> >> interests.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is pure thought stuff, I concede. But so is yours
> >> >> or unionization "collective rights" - a notion that I
> >> >> find bogus, a mere rhetorical device to sugarcoat the
> >> >> rule of mob.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >> >You're welcome to point out any logical development which
> >> >leads from the liberal rights to wrjames's (apparently
> >> >self-contradictory) contention that "[Unions] are evil by
> >> >virtue of the fact that they cannot function without infringing
> >> >on the rights of others. In theory they can, but in reality,
> >> >they can't." I don't see it.

bulba >:
> >> I'd say that he relies on econ theory here - that the cartel
> >> can't function without power of the state.

(G*rd*n) wrote:
> >That depends on circumstances -- there are natural cartels.
> >For most companies, there are important money and nuisance
> >costs in attempting to replace all their employees at once.
> >If the employees organize, they can exploit the potential
> >of these costs as long as they don't try to exploit them
> >too much, that is, beyond the point where it becomes more
> >profitable to replace all the employees, or they put the
> >company out of business. Within that margin, it's just
> >too expensive and too difficult for a company to be moving
> >all those bodies in and out.

:
> For unskilled labor, it's pretty irrelevant. If government respected
> the rights of business owners a business with unskilled employees
> could easily replace the droids for $3 an hour. It's a little more
> expensive for skilled workers, but those with valuable skills need no
> union unless they simply aren't willing to do much work for the pay.


That depends on conditions, obviously. I've seen labor markets
where you couldn't hire a sleepwalker, and others where highly
skilled people like machinists or computer programmers were
on the street in hordes and could be hired very cheaply. So
have most people who care to observe (not many, it appears).
It is obvious that, under conditions of a tight labor market,
employees acting together can squeeze more out of the employer
acting together than they can individually. And since the
relation between traditional capitalist employers and their
employees are rather adversarial, that's pretty much what it
comes down to: squeezing. By your own words, you're a pretty
good example of that, so you should understand it.

--

(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't