joeKnowledge Links Archive: Search for internet articles snipeits and links about business, current event news, technology, education, art and science. This site is part of a network of blogs to create a knowledgebase of news articles to search through.
So then why can Unions Strike?
Published on December 11, 2007 By joeKnowledge In Consumer Issues
A question for those who understand business law:
Group Boycotts and Refusals to Deal

I can understand why this is part of the Sherman Act; it blocks companies from squashing a competitor who may be new to the market or just really not liked for some reason or another. For example you have 3 oil companies who deal with 10 different truck companies... the 11 company does the same thing and they work with them too, but then as a group decide not to because company 11 eats babies (work with me here). As awful as eating babies is, they can't as a group decide to boycott them until they stop eating babies.

I personally still think that this provision under the act is very tricky. Unlike division of markets or price fixing (in its many forms), Group Boycotts and Refusal To Deal seems to limit the freedoms of the corp greatly. It would almost seem that I better have a reason not to deal with you. Case 17.3 look like a union buster to me since what union does not strike for pay raises? Would have it been better if the SCTLA said we want raises but didn't specifically say how much?

The Taylor law in NY protects state and city agency's from striking unions (supposedly) with fines, jail time for leaders and such (while allowing for direct union dues being taken from the persons check... which brings up another issue of an employee who is hired and HAS to be in a union), but with out the law shouldn't this area in the Sherman Act provide safety for governments and businesses?

Google Search: group boycotts and refusals to deal

Case in Question:
FTC Vs Superior Court Trail Lawyers Association
493 U.S. 411 (1990)

on Dec 11, 2007
Actually, any Anti-trust legislation is a restriction on Corporations.  Many would say that the intent is real, but all the restrictions are arbitrary.  Just a stop gap way of trying to ensure companies access to the markets.  Anti Trust is in itself very stupid.  In effect, hopefully, it will promote the end result.  But the balancing act between the 2 is always hard.  How much to legislate versus how much to allow the market to dictate.