Owners & CEOs Get Away with All Kinds of Collusion That Workers Organizing Are Quickly Targeted for

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-it-ok-owners-collude-against

Technology, sports and politics are distinct worlds. They have their own junkies, their own vernaculars and their own peculiar customs. Yet, in recent weeks you may have noticed a common economic argument coming from those worlds' respective leaders -- an argument about who should have a right to engage in collective action and who should not.

In Silicon Valley, this argument was expressed in a flood of old emails from top executives at major companies such as Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe. As reported by my PandoDaily colleague Mark Ames, the correspondence released in court proceedings shows those executives agreeing to avoid hiring away employees from one another.

Remember, many of the companies these executives represent are hostile to the ideas of worker solidarity, collective bargaining and unionization. Yet their emails assert that CEOs' collective decision to ignore anti-trust statutes and distort the labor market should be considered perfectly acceptable. Why? Because, of course, their cartel's anti-competitive structure probably saved those executives money by driving down workers' wages.

In the world of college athletics, it is a similar argument. In response to Northwestern University football players recently voting to form a union, the NCAA insisted that college athletes have "no right" to collectively bargain or to be paid for their revenue-generating services on the field. Instead, the NCAA says it retains the only rights to collective action in the college sports ecosystem. More specifically, the NCAA argues that while the kids are not entitled to collective representation, major universities are permitted to collude to prevent players from being paid for their work.

[marmar]

1. k/r

[Jesus Malverde]

2. bump... nt