Whether or not you agree with the demands, it’s probably disingenuous to call this a strike.
It’s much closer to cartel conduct, and a flagrant antitrust/competition law violation.
While the “number of small labourers team up against large employer” narrative sounds superficially like the actions of a labour union, what this appears to be is actually a number of small businesses forming a cartel to influence the prices for their goods. Probably blatantly illegal in much of the developed world.
Collective bargaining is always a weird line between bad anticompetitive behavior, and well... good anticompetitive behavior. We needed a minimum wage, for example, because labor dynamics meant some other worker would generally bid lower than that. Labor competition drove wages too low.
While you're right in your categorization, you aren't necessarily right in calling it bad, because that category isn't always bad. Particularly because of the asymmetry between actors. In this case, that same asymmetry is there (like with uber's "contractors"). You might be right, but I think it's less blatant and more nuanced than you're giving it credit for.
You’re right, which is why I didn’t call it bad. I called it a cartel.
In fact I probably agree with their demands, but on its face this is a) not a strike and b) in need of authorisation or similar mechanism under completion law.
Though, many Etsy businesses are sole proprietorships or family businesses, in which case capital and labour are the same, and it's also a labour strike.
“Capital strike” tends to be used in situations where this kind of behaviour is spurred by an unfavourable government policy, and enacted by firms that have some form of market power (or political power).
These are small businesses with no market power agreeing to collectively price squeeze another player in an upstream/downstream market. Textbook cartel behaviour.
Capital strike is a strike by capital. There can be typical cases, but fundamentally that's what this is - though under platform capitalism, I think platform residents hold a much more precarious position than traditional capital because they answer to more than just the government and the market - the platform forms a second government for them.
A cartel is a group of businesses who collude to take market power as an oligopoly. That's not what this is, because these sellers are striking for platform changes, not consumer domination. You can keep saying it's cartel behaviour, but you're working with a different definition of cartel to the mainstream one. They're colluding yes, but they are not warping market forces the way a business cartel does (the typical example being the lightbulb cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel).
They absolutely are warping market forces - that’s the whole point.
We can argue about whether or not this is good (by the sounds of it, probably?) but the entire purpose of them agreeing to restrict their output is to influence the cost of their inputs/outputs.
In the absence of market power, individual firms can’t do that!
I wouldn't describe it as market forces when the organisation they're opposing is a platform with monopoly power. Etsy has fiat power over anybody on their platform.
If we're talking about the generic concept of a cartel that encompasses basically all special interest groups, then yes they're a cartel - but they're not a business cartel in the same way that Phoebus group were. The power imbalance puts them in a position more comparable to a labour union.
Etsy sellers could become a cartel. And banding together to force some third player to only play with them, to the exclusion of others, is classic cartel behaviour
Not saying this is right or wrong, or if it even matches up with the case, but this is what I found on price fixing. Businesses are (from my training as an engineer) generally not allowed to coordinate any behavior related to pricing with a competitor.
Example: A group of competing optometrists agreed not to participate in a vision care network unless the network raised reimbursement rates for patients covered by its plan. The optometrists refused to treat patients covered by the network plan, and, eventually, the company raised reimbursement rates. The FTC said that the optometrists' agreement was illegal price fixing, and that its leaders had organized an effort to make sure other optometrists knew about and complied with the agreement.
I know you are getting downvoted and a lot of gaff, but I do think you propose an interesting question. I am not sure what is illegal and what is not, but I am confident I support the strike.
So, let's say you are right. Would that make it illegal for all Uber drivers or strippers to strike? They are independent contractors, not employees. It also seems to me that these laws are created specifically to protect the consumer. Without damages, where is the crime? Even the example of the optometrists includes some theoretical damage to the consumer as the prices of their insurance could go up or the consumers had less access to eye care.
In the case of Etsy sellers though, I can not see how this could hurt consumers. Sellers are striking to lower the price of fees, which should help consumers and only hurt Etsy. I don't know the law, but I do feel like the law should be written in a way that these government agencies only act to prevent non-competitive activities that could hurt consumers.
Why do you say that, just because things sold by Etsy merchants aren't sufficiently substitutable for each other?
I think Etsy sellers are certainly less in competition with each other than say, idk, oil sellers, but I do think there is some degree of substitution between the kinds of things sold on Etsy, and so to a degree they are competitors.
> etsy is not 'the market'
So? It's a significant part of the market. A cartel influencing just one seller doesn't necessarily make it not-a-cartel.
> sellers have not agreed anything to each other
Have they not? Isn't that the whole point of the strike? Communicating to other sellers "hey how about we all do this thing together? if only a few of us do it nothing will happen, but if all of us do it we can influence Etsy".
----
If you replace the many small Etsy sellers with a smaller number of larger sellers, this starts to look very much like a cartel "bullying" a buyer. Like OPEC refusing to sell to the US unless they abide by certain policies, or something.
Like GP I don't think this is bad or anything, but it's interesting to note that cartels and strikes are kinda similar in shape, and it's more "sliding" properties (how many sellers? how big are they? how strong is the competition between them?) that differentiate them.
I think they are obviously very substitutable And surely many of them are selling elsewhere and consumers aren't being forced to pay more. there doesn't seem to be a conspiracy behind it, this is a very public petition , like boycotting russia . It would be quite a stretch if this falls anywhere near anticompetitive. What's next, banning uber drivers from boycotts?
They're not working to change the pricing of their goods but rather to force a service provider to change its pricing and behavior. They're not asking to restrict competition or to prevent each other from lowering prices. So not sure where you get cartel from.
>It’s much closer to cartel conduct, and a flagrant antitrust/competition law violation.
>While the “number of small labourers team up against large employer” narrative sounds superficially like the actions of a labour union, what this appears to be is actually a number of small businesses forming a cartel to influence the prices for their goods. Probably blatantly illegal in much of the developed world.
Aren't labor unions (especially closed shop ones) basically a cartel for labor?
A union is explicitly a labour cartel. But we as a society decided that giving workers more money and better conditions is good, and that they should be allowed to collectively bargain for them.
At the same time we for the most part decided that businesses best serve society when in the absence of market power, hence competition law enabling unions and outlawing cartels.
Of course you are allowed to change your output - but independently and in reaction to your own circumstances.
Collectively agreeing to simultaneously stop selling in order to force a change in the cost of your inputs is in most cases not legal.
The easy test is to ask yourself if it makes sense for an individual seller to reduce their output in the absence of any other changes. In this case, the answer is no. Only when they all collide to do it at the same time does it work.
It’s much closer to cartel conduct, and a flagrant antitrust/competition law violation.
While the “number of small labourers team up against large employer” narrative sounds superficially like the actions of a labour union, what this appears to be is actually a number of small businesses forming a cartel to influence the prices for their goods. Probably blatantly illegal in much of the developed world.