> Even aside from the examples of Debs & Gompers jailed for
> 'anti-trust' violation, don't anti-monopoly efforts tend to have
> anti-union effects? Higher wages for union members, to a certain
> extent, must come from higher profits of oligopoly or monopoly. More
> competition, lower wages, no? The example of truckers & trucking
> companies before & after deregulation may be instructive.
> Yoshie
True that unionization has historically fared better in monopoly sector
than competitive sector but my point was more specific historical one
regarding use of Sherman. Severe consequences of injunction, fines,
criminal contempt citations, imprisonment forced even Gompers to move
away from belief (in no radcial sense, however) that organized labor
avoid political involvement.
Gompers and John Mitchell (United Mine Workers) sat on board of
National Civic Federation (NCF), organization founded by corporate
capital vanguard in 1901. NCF supported government regulation of
industry and recognition of unions (considered AFL 'friend' in ranks
of 'big capital,' it pushed for removal of unions from Sherman
jurisdiction).
During same period, progressive Herbert Croly argued for legalizing,
recognizing and regulating both trusts and unions. According to HC,
concentration and combination were not problem, Jeffersonian illusions
in industrial era were.
Following partial state incorporation during Woodrow Wilson's first
term, AFL faced renewed anti-labor business tactics (also brief radical
labor challenge) after WW1. In approving Mussolini's repudiation
of labor competition (and defending fascist coup as necessary to stop
Bolshevism), Gompers gave union expression to US corporatism.
Great Depression witnessed return of NCF-type attitude among elements of
monopoly capital (GM's Alfred Sloan asserted that industrial unionism
would stave off communism) and passage of Wagner Act intended to
stabilize politics of production, assist in general economic recovery
based on mass consumption, and tie organized labor to rule of
administrative law. And while acceptance of industrial relations
compact - improved production & enforced production standards in exchange
for secure, stable employment - was more likely found in monopoly
capital, some segments of competitive sector - such as 'little steel' -
eventually signed on as well.
As for trucking, I recall deregulation not as 'anti-monoply' effort
(hasn't industry generally been a competitive one?) but as one based on
conservative argument that costs of government 'interference'
outweigh benefits. Of course, 'greater freedom in rate making' by
individual truckers produced results to which you point. Michael Hoover
