Comments on: Unions Are Corporations, Too

By: Walter Klaus

Walter Klaus — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:10:09 +0000

Just an observation: when you discussed the source of profit in paragraph 1, you only mentioned behaviors of business towards customers e.g. that a business that cheats its customers won’t prosper. Even if one assumes that your statement is universally true, you’ve only addressed a part of the dynamics of capitalism. There are others relations to consider. What about those relations inherent in production? Are the virtues of integrity, honesty, and hard work as clear there?

Another observation: Profit is a slippery word. There could be a significant difference in what profit implies that could create a distinction between labor unions and corporations. (I think anti-corporation is clumsy, but that is another topic) It may be more clear to say that both unions and corporations are very interested in making money. As you said, unions are interested in making money for its workers and corporations for their stockholders. Good analysis there. However, there could be a distinction in how that money circulates e.g. the use of that money. I’m going to make assumptions so forgive me. Money used by the worker and money used by the stockholder can be very different. In short, the average worker trades his or her labor power (as a commodity) for wages, which are in the end exchanged for other commodities. It’s a commodity for money for commodity flow. This is an oversimplification granted. However, money used as capital is different. Shareholders use money differently than workers. That type of money is used to purchase the means of production (resources, labor power, etc.) to order to produce commodities for sale to garner a return on the money initially invested. It’s a money to commodity to money flow. This isn’t to say that stockholders don’t buy goods and services for consumption or that workers don’t make investments, but only that while they are both associations of individuals united for a common purpose there could be further distinctions that would require separate treatment for each.

By: Noah

Noah — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:54:59 +0000

Kyle, it’s called a straw man attack. Very typical…

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:35:27 +0000

Eric, nobody made that argument so why are you trying to debunk it?

By: Eric Price

Eric Price — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 17:20:12 +0000

This argument “Unions are corporations, all corporations are identical, and therefore, a union is identical to any other corporate entity” has serious logical problems.

Unions, like city, state and national governments, are indeed a type of corporate entity. However, suggesting that there is little to no difference between, say, The Peoples Republic of China, Houston, TX, and Microsoft is a gross oversimplification.

Second, the “monopolistic” abilities that the author bemoans, are required by the obvious realities that arise from the way that very different types of corporatized entities behave in the real world. We do not say that Dallas is behaving like a monopoly because it is not also San Antonio, or that a contract between Enron and a local government should not be exclusive.

All forms of incorporation are not identical, and should not be treated identically by our legal system.

By: Ernie

Ernie — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:09:00 +0000

Overall, a very thoughtful article… your ire at pro-union, anti-corporate sentiment is well articulated. Yet, I am curious if you find the anti-union, pro-corporate view equally irksome.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:22:16 +0000

You miss the point. Unions already ARE corporations by any reasonable definition of the word. The exact legal organization is irrelevant. And corporate personhood really isn’t a big deal. Not sure why everybody keeps bringing it up. I’m not sure what other “benefits” of incorporation you are referring to. There aren’t many.

By: Robert Subiaga Jr

Robert Subiaga Jr — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:12:11 +0000

Unions as corporations? Why not. But caveat emptor. I think it’d be a grand idea. However I think business would find that the supposedly unfair benefits (such as claim to monopoly) ascribed to unions is nowhere near as powerful or potent as the benefits of incorporation (including, ahem, “personhood.”) In fact, we need no laws; if it ever catches on to look at the issue, many smart unions will go register as corporations of their own accord, in the business of representation. And business will find, just as they do when having to deal with cutthroat agents who know how to drive a deal, the concessions they’ll find they have to make will have them longing for the good old days of “labor” and “management.”

By: Toni

Toni — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:50:02 +0000

Spot on, unions are businesses. Some are very, very lucrative. Do they have to register and pay taxes like regular corporations? I would love to know where to find that out. Also, I have a friend who is an employee of a union. I asked her if she is in a union. The answer was hilarious… the union that represents other employees will not permit its own employees to unionize. (I thought that was illegal, but could not prove it to her.)

By: Caleb Nelson

Caleb Nelson — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:13:35 +0000

Yes. Unions, like churches and private schools, are entities aimed at bettering society, yet built for on the same grounds as a big business. They are just businesses with a different mask. I understand the importance of unions, but I believe that the philosophy behind unions has changed quite a bit since their inception. Proud union workers have turned into inconsiderate workers (not that I can’t name some really good union workers), working with the understanding that available jobs are endlessly at arms reach. Kinda like Terell Owens. There is no penalty for being crap to the industry, because wherever you look, you are welcomed with open arms.

Caleb
http://www.mefinanciallyfree.blogspot.com

By: Curt

Curt — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:50:58 +0000

I agree. Labor unions are enjoying an political advantage, even as they threaten to bankrupt many industries in the current recession.