Redditors Propose Setting Up A 'Consumers' Union' To Fight Back Against Broadband Giants
from the rethinking-collective-bargaining dept
A random factoid about my past that some people don't know is that I have a degree in "industrial and labor relations," which involved an awful lot of learning about the history of unions, collective bargaining and the like. While I firmly believe that most unions today are counterproductive (frequently holding back innovation and flexibility), the idea certainly made quite a lot of sense in the early days, in which you had parties (giant employers) with near total market power over employees who had absolutely no market power. Basically, many companies were market abusers, and they abused freely. Organizing workers for collective bargaining was a way to even the playing field slightly. That it later resulted in vast amounts of corruption and cronyism, let alone hindering the way in which companies could innovate and adapt, are certainly big issues to be concerned about -- but there were reasons why that happened as well (driven by leadership on both sides).But, still, when you have a vast mismatch in market power, with one side being an effective monopoly, and the other side being dispersed among many people, there is a certain appeal to collective bargaining. And that appears to be the root appeal of an idea percolating over on Reddit right now for an ISP Consumers Union, inspired by a Reddit comment from a few days ago. The basic thinking is that if the FCC and Congress aren't all that interested in preventing big broadband company fuckery, then perhaps the consumers should take it into their own hands, join forces, and negotiate as a unified force with the ISPs. A bunch of folks have jumped into the discussion and are talking about a variety of different facets, from what the "union" would have the power to do to the legal issues to the administrative aspects of the whole thing.
There's something profoundly interesting about this from a few different angles. I have no idea if something like this will actually come together for real, let alone work, but the effective "market conditions" do match those that led to the rise of organized labor, with a few "monopolists" abusing their power to treat people (in that case, workers, in this case, broadband subscribers) poorly. The situation is certainly not identical, but there are parallels. Broadband access today is certainly considered by many to be as important as a job a century ago. In fact, many consider it essential to having a job. And, yet, there remain very few broadband providers and the big ones all have pretty long histories of abusive practices. That said, the "abuses" certainly pale in comparison to the way that big oil and steel companies treated workers in the late 19th century, but it's not a completely crazy concept.
Would people care enough to make a difference? And what legitimate bargaining power would they have? People could "strike" by cancelling their service. Or they could organize to move en masse to a competitor -- if there is a competitor. The whole concept is undeniably fascinating. While I'd still worry about the same ills that later plagued (and still plague, though not always to the same levels) organized labor, one would hope that with some knowledge of what went wrong there, an ISP Consumers Union could avoid some of those pitfalls. Frankly, the biggest problem with unions (and, again, this was often driven by company management) was viewing "management" and "labor" as being diametrically opposed forces, rather than different parties with different needs but an overall focus on a similar goal. That is, even when labor hated management, driving a big company out of business entirely was certainly worse than figuring out ways to get things done. The problem was that the two sides were often so antagonistic, that bargaining itself became a war of spite, rather than each side understanding the overall issues, and working out compromises so that everyone could be better off.
It's entirely possible that an ISP Consumer Union could eventually be plagued by similar issues -- making unwarranted demands on broadband providers that make it impossible for them to remain in business. But, as a way to hack around the current (failed) politics of net neutrality, and present an alternative option, one that is much more bottom up than top down, is absolutely fascinating.
At the same time, it's also profoundly depressing that broadband consumers of today have that much in common with laborers at the dawn of the industrial revolution...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, collective bargaining, fcc, isps, labor history, market power, monopolies, organizing, unions
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then it occurred to me that that's what Congress is supposed to be doing anyway, and that's it's pretty damn sad that it's gotten to the point where we feel we need to hire somebody to represent us to people who are supposed to be representing us already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are naive if you think they can hear anything outside their small circles of influence, when it comes to drafting actual legislation.
Talk is much cheaper than actions. In politics that is to be taken literal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The main issue today isn't so much the pure dollar amount (which would be in the billions -- so, no, not Kickstartery), but the political connections. You'd need to be able to negotiate rights of way for laying infrastructure, and/or to buy spectrum and then set up towers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it started went to $2 million. Can't recall it right now, but I'm sure it was on Ars Technica if someone else remembers...
Anyway, let's get to a few things...
While I firmly believe that most unions today are counterproductive (frequently holding back innovation and flexibility),
This isn't really true because unions represent democracy in the workplace. There are certainly some undemocratic unions but that's the result of rules such as the Taft-Hartley Act which deprive unions of dues while also having them represent people that don't pay these dues. It's a starvation tactic and it works to make unions less effective. Also, look in other countries such as Germany. They made unions stronger while America, since 1946, has made unions weaker.
That it later resulted in vast amounts of corruption and cronyism, let alone hindering the way in which companies could innovate and adapt, are certainly big issues to be concerned about -- but there were reasons why that happened as well (driven by leadership on both sides).
I'm not positive about this but the emphasis should be where we question this... Why are we only looking at leadership? The premise I set is that you pay dues for your protection in the workplace. After seeing what has happened to the largest unions (Teamsters for example), their decimation should make us question how we can better protect workers. It's not happening right now and the result is that the Steve Jobs of the world can walk all over their employees as a result of collusion. That should be something avoided IMO.
In regards to the Consumer's Union, I support the idea, and want to see how it goes. It's about time that people recognize that democracy begins with them. To have so many people create an organization from scratch is certainly needed along with someone advocating municipal broadband while protecting people on the national level could be done. It just takes organizing. I'll definitely see how this comes up as time goes along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe that statement made sense when unions began, and for quit a while afterwards. But it is, in and of itself, quit antagonistic. It purports that there is a necessity to be protected. While assholes exist, and some of them run companies, to make the 'all employers are assholes' assumption is, well antagonistic. I think Mike has a stronger argument in that it is much more important to communicate, and work toward goals. Talk is all that is needed until one side becomes unreasonable. What is your standard for that?
Unless the union bosses are like legislators who do a whole lot of make work, you know, to justify their existence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surely the reason for that is that companies are still the same as they were at that time. every company boss wants to get as rich as possible, as quickly as possibly and isn't too worried about the methods that have to be employed to achieve that goal. i think the biggest problem here is the lack of competition, so it's going to be difficult to carry out the threat of changing supplier.
however, i think it's a good idea, provided the companies concerned dont try with the union the same tactics i believe with each other and government, ie, under the table deals. if it worked, there's no reason why not to include other companies and industries. the one that immediately jumps to mind being the entertainment industries. what good a damn great dose of really losing revenue would do them, instead of the imaginary amounts they keep spinning to politicians , politicians who are 'encouraged' to accept these make believe tales as being gospel!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People don't want to admit this but the goal of wealth conflicts with the goal of providing the best product/service. I don't know why people struggle with this concept. Everyone knows goals conflict with each other all the time. My goal of being comfortable conflicts with my goal of being healthy because it interferes with my ability to exercise (because exercise is unpleasant). Everyone knows that the goals of privacy and security are in conflict, that the goals of freedom and crime-fighting are in conflict, that the goals of freedom of expression and promoting the progress of science and the useful arts are in conflict, but they have trouble accepting that the goal of wealth can conflict with providing the best product or service. Just about any goal can (and likely will) conflict with just about any other goal; the goal of wealth is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not just unskilled folks; quite a few skilled folks and even those with college degrees are having trouble finding any job that pays enough to provide for them and their families. The two biggest problems (though not the only problems) are the costs of housing keeps going up and the lack of mobility. Many people for whatever reason cannot afford to just pack up and move to where the jobs are; if they can they get sticker shock when they find out how much housing costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
have a national HQ full of the top notch people, to include lawyers
have the local office "purchase services" from the HQ, and their IT connect
resell the national HQ for other industries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they reduce their cable subscriptions - as a group.
So they cut their internet package back - as a group.
So they write their congress critters and atty gens and the FTC - as a group.
Organization works. Getting your friends involved to exert your power as a voter works. This really could work, but its much closer to political activism than labor. Calling it a Union is simply a different label.
I left out the FCC for a reason: they are pretty much useless at this point. The only thing they can really do to start bringing the ISP's under control is Title II classification and honestly, I don't think they have the stones for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I came away from my experience thinking that labor unions are at best merely a patch on a fundamental flaw in our democracy, drawn up when European monarchical governments could charter or dissolve concentrations of economic power on a whim. Our founders created a system to yoke power to the will of the people, but unfortunately they seem to have failed to anticipate a day when economic power would eclipse and capture the power of the state. As a result we now have a vast reservoir of power that lies outside of any effective democratic control.
The currently popular dogma that economic power shouldn't be considered POWER, and therefore subject to the will of the people, is ka-ka, IMO.
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wild thought here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unions aren't obsolete -- management is
Know what would increase flexibility and efficiency? Worker self-management. Know what the "union" is that stands in the way of that? It's called MANAGEMENT. Management can't trust workers with autonomy because both sides know their interests are dialectically opposed, and workers have no reason to be more productive than required to avoid getting fired because management will use it against them. It would be like a plantation owner giving slaves more autonomy when they have every reason in the world to kill him.
And workers come up with rigid work rules and job descriptions because if you give management an inch they take a mile.
Flexibility and discretion are only possible when all the benefits and costs of a decision are internalized by the party making it and nobody's in a position of power to shift consequences downward and benefits upward.
If you think unions are outdated try working in a fucking banana republic right-to-work state like Arkansas.
I'll tell you what's outdated -- management. When workers in Argentina took over management of those recuperated enterprises, and abolished high-salared managers, the first thing they learned was that all that poor-mouth they'd been getting over the years about the desperate need to "cut costs" was a self-serving load of horse shit. Just getting rid of the salaries of the boys in the C-suite made them extremely competitive. And the place ran better when the people who actually did the work were in charge. Not to mention that workers had a reason to contribute all their Hayekian distributed knowledge of the work process when they knew all the productivity gains would go to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
instead of trying to create a "Consumer union", which isn't really a union other than in the joining of like minds definitions aka "association", "Co-operative", "society" etc (though a co-op does have benefits especially in buying power etc)
Change your actual CONSUMER LAWS to reflect consumers and NOT corporations.. To see examples of this look in EVERY OTHER 1st World country/region to see how consumer law actually has teeth, uses equity, and makes manufacturers responsible for there actions and goods/services!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrest The Lot Of Them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]