Boeing machinists reject contract 75-25%, vote to go on strike

[halik]

People who think this way have been fooled by Corporate brainwashing to vote against their own interests.

Weak mindedness, really.

I'm waiting to hear how I, a consumer, benefit from unionization.

And no corporations are not allowed to exert market power, look up the sherman act.

 

[halik]

Actually, I was on a Reno bound bus that was hit by a semi that lost its breaks and the brain damage I got made work impossible for me. Luckily I had union accident insurance so I don't have to worry about money. I do blame the chemist that designed the break pads though. They were of inferior quality and caught fire on a long downgrade. Turns out he was an egotistical prick who got the job because his Dad owned the factory.

Explains quite a bit...

On a related note, long term disability is not a union-exclusive thing. Every single full time job I've held had that.

 

[nonlnear]

And no corporations are not allowed to exert market power, look up the sherman act.

Are you sent here from the democraticunderground or moveon.org to make "free marketers" appear stupid? I fear not, because this post smacks of genuine idiocy. Boeing exerts market power. Period. Boeing is actively encouraged by the federal government (and that of various states) to exert market power using hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies to do exactly that. Claiming that the sherman act somehow prevents this when it is happening in broad daylight is lunacy at its finest. And no, I am not arguing that there is something insidious about Boeing's market power (at least not in general). I am only arguing that the sherman act does not apply because the market power that Boeing wields is not market power that Congress has decided it doesn't like. After all they encourage it in various markets...

 

[halik]

Are you sent here from the democraticunderground or moveon.org to make "free marketers" appear stupid? I fear not, because this post smacks of genuine idiocy. Boeing exerts market power. Period. Boeing is actively encouraged by the federal government (and that of various states) to exert market power using hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies to do exactly that. Claiming that the sherman act somehow prevents this when it is happening in broad daylight is lunacy at its finest. And no, I am not arguing that there is something insidious about Boeing's market power (at least not in general). I am only arguing that the sherman act does not apply because the market power that Boeing wields is not market power that Congress has decided it doesn't like. After all they encourage it in various markets...

So Boeing exerts monopoly power on machinists? What exactly is your argument there.

And yes, the federal gov't regulates Boeing's market power. FTC pretty much jumps on every single M&A or joint venture that Boeing wants to do.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...Wo1VUd&sig=AHIEtbS__ynfdGRRzhXRJq2Ih37YVKt6GA

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Explains quite a bit...

On a related note, long term disability is not a union-exclusive thing. Every single full time job I've held had that.

his counter argument.
you would not be enjoying LTD benefits if it were not for the unions.

 

[nonlnear]

So Boeing exerts monopoly power on machinists? What exactly is your argument there.

My argument was that your two second analysis of what the sherman act is and what it supposedly prevents is dead wrong. Corporations ARE allowed to exert market power, and are often encouraged to do so. That is all.

And yes, the federal gov't regulates Boeing's market power. FTC pretty much jumps on every single M&A or joint venture that Boeing wants to do.

Of course it does. I never made a claim to the contrary.

 

[halik]

My argument was that your two second analysis of what the sherman act is and what it supposedly prevents is dead wrong. Corporations ARE allowed to exert market power, and are often encouraged to do so. That is all.

Of course it does. I never made a claim to the contrary.

My two second analysis comes from Grad courses in antitrust economics....

Depending on how you exert market power (tying generally per se illegal, exclusive contract you have to prove you don't hurt the customer IIRC).

 

[nonlnear]

My two second analysis comes from Grad courses in antitrust economics....

You should ask for your money back if you were actually taught that the sentence you posted is true without massive (essentially eviscerating) caveats. Fortunately you weren't actually taught such a simplistic understanding, but you shouldn't try to pass off such tripe as the results of "grad courses in antitrust economics".

Depending on how you exert market power (tying generally per se illegal, exclusive contract you have to prove you don't hurt the customer).

Ah yes, here are the eviscerating caveats. We both know there are more too. You should really put them up front so your claims can stand on their merits rather than relying on readers to either be too ignorant to object, or knowledgeable enough to fill in the blanks for you.

 

[halik]

You should ask for your money back if you were actually taught that the sentence you posted is true without massive (essentially eviscerating) caveats. Fortunately you weren't actually taught such a simplistic understanding, but you shouldn't try to pass off such tripe as the results of "grad courses in antitrust economics".

Ah yes, here are the eviscerating caveats. We both know there are more too. You should really put them up front so your claims can stand on their merits rather than relying on readers to either be too ignorant to object, or knowledgeable enough to fill in the blanks for you.

Actually had to go back and check, it was an undergrad course.

I'm obviously summarizing the content to refute the silly idea that government doesn't care about companies exerting market power. Even in the case of Boeing that enjoys a ton of defense work, the FTC and DoJ do their job.

If i remember correctly, the process went something along the lines of this:
1) define the market
2) compute HHI based on the def above to show market power
3) if the case is about tying and the firm has significant market power per HHI, they're more or less bones
4) if not, then they litigate and try to prove that their conduct wasn't anti competitive

This is outside the regular joint venture/M&A review that FTC does

 

[nonlnear]

Actually had to go back and check, it was an undergrad course.

Fair enough, and I have to apologize for being overly hostile in tone. Perhaps I should go to bed.

I'm obviously summarizing the content to refute the silly idea that government doesn't care about companies exerting market power. Even in the case of Boeing that enjoys a ton of defense work, the FTC and DoJ do their job.

If i remember correctly, the process went something along the lines of this:
1) define the market
2) compute HHI based on the def above to show market power
3) if the case is about tying and the firm has significant market power per HHI, they're more or less bones

It's unfortunate that such antiquated concepts as the HHI are still used in economic regulations, given that they are essentially meaningless in terms of effective market power. Economics has progressed far beyond the early measures of monopoly power but Congress hasn't. But such is law...

4) if not, then they litigate and try to prove that their conduct wasn't anti competitive

This is outside the regular joint venture/M&A review that FTC does

My main objection was more to the broadness of the claim when parsed strictly: "corporations are not allowed to exert market power". Antitrust is only a narrow regulatory slice of the various economic activities in which a corporation can exert market power. One of the most important regulatory roles of government is to create millions of monopolies int he form of patents. Then there is the market power exerted by corporations in the form of earmarks, discriminatory pricing, pretty much every practice of the marketing industry, etc. Unions themselves are corporations which exist for the sole purpose of exerting market power - monopoly power if they can secure it! And then even when you get into the narrow range of activities covered by antitrust law, there are still plenty of exertions of market power which are allowed and even encouraged.

 

[piasabird]

This could be perceived as a national security threat. We fired air traffic controllers once for holding the country hostage.

 

[pcgeek11]

Your job will go to China soon enough. Better go back to college and learn how to flip burgers.

Yep. I see the Brain Damage coming through!

Dipshit.

 

[ebaycj]

Explains quite a bit...

On a related note, long term disability is not a union-exclusive thing. Every single full time job I've held had that.

For the record, Moonbeam made 100% of that story up.