More to the point, though, where is the evidence that this merger is in the public interest? Certainly, most mergers in the US produce negative returns for shareholders, to say nothing of job losses for workers. That's not to say all mergers should be rejected or stopped, but the idea that holding up a merger for worker-seniority-based reasons is contrary to the public interest is just bizarre.

Megan's problem is that, like many economists and all libertarians, she doesn't believe in power. In her view, everything is determined by individual decisions. Sure, she may concede at times the power has mattered in specific instances, but her worldview essentially excludes power as a variable--ignoring institutions and the fact that all systems are political constructs. Beyond that she believes that progress=growth. If you add the two together, with a belief in negative liberty as an ought, then, well, working people don't matter as far as their needs are concerned, but they do matter insofar as they are mucking up a beloved, naive model of society.

The same doesn't work for corporations though, as you point out. This is because whatever corporations do is what must have had to occur in a market economy-think Dr. Pangloss in Candide.

I hasten to add that if people read Adam Smith himself, they will discover that he was not this naive or dogmatic.

Awesome.

"I do think of her "as a union basher.""

Every day she writes a new post in which she uses her imagined powers to read the minds of her ‘critics’ and how something she imagines they think is wrong, or terribly unfair to her. There are very rarely ever links to anyone or even references to comments made in previous posts.

If you keep encouraging her she’ll be telling why you made the wrong decision in what you choose to eat for breakfast this morning.

I have personally solved this problem (seniority consolidation of large unionized employee groups post-merger) at least 3 times--and can personally testify that it is EXTREMELY difficult and extremely important.

American Prospect mergers with Atlantic. Prospect writers get top senioriy--e.g. first choice of stories to write. Atlantic writers get the dregs. See where this goes?

I'm sure this is a hard problem in unionized shops, but why do you think this is a problem with unions? I've certainly seen it more than once in mergers of software engineering organizations, which weren't at all unionized.

Of course, the criticism of you could be made in reverse.

You only seem to criticize the corporations/CEOs and don't post on the problems of the unions, etc.

Do does that make you a corporation/CEO basher?

I find this kind of thought process incredibly offensive. One of the principle goals of a union is to offer workers a voice in the workplace and protect their interests in the workplace. In Europe, workers sit on corporate boards and have wield tremendous influence over the direction of the company. The reason for that is because workers have a stake in the company, it’s a different kind of stake than shareholders. But since workers are affected by the health and direction of a company, Europe has acknowledged (or workers in Europe have forced companies to acknowledge) this stake.

So its not just workers creating inefficiencies in the company, its workers protecting their rights in the process. If a portion of workers are hurt by a change in a company, why should they be concerned with how resisting that change might create inefficiency for the company? If a merger between Delta and Northwest is going to cause injury to a group of workers, then why shouldn’t they resist that change, or slow the process until they can figure out a way to mitigate that harm? Interests in the workplace extend beyond wages and benefits and the role of unions will always be to serve as a voice for what those interests are and attempt to fight to preserve them. If you don’t think that unions should do that then you are quite simply anti-union.

like many economists and all libertarians, she doesn't believe in power

I don't know what you're talking about...power is an important component of game theory, and every economist worthy of the name uses game theory.

The problem with Megan McArdle is that she isn't worthy of the name. She hasn't really studied economics, and thus tends to think that "what businesspeople want" = "what's good for the economy." That view is ridiculous. Please don't mistake Megan McArdle for an economist.

Mr. Noah:

that is why I said "like many economists and all libertarians." While it is true that game theory is a way of bringing in power, it still hasn't penetrated the basic assumption of neo-classical economics. In any case, I think a lot of economists do an excellent job of thinking about this sort of thing, and I think the whole field of political economy has a lot of interesting insights into these questions. But the main point is that libertarians have a huge blind spot here and that is how I was judging Megan: as a blind libertarian. Not as an economist. I am well aware that she has acquired a patina of economics jargon through her MBA and is not a real economist.

MOAR.

Thank you, Ezra. The general concept of symmetry between corporations and unions is one that needs a lot more play. A few examples:

1. People bash unions for distorting employment negotiations, and for giving employees excess bargaining power, without realizing that the corporate structure does the same for corporate executives.

2. People bash union corruption (which is overstated in any case) without even thinking about the fact that the worst examples of corruption we've seen don't involve unions, but corporations. (Even if a union wanted to be totally corrupt, it obviously doesn't have enough money to rival Enron.)

3. People criticize unions (especially older unions such as the autoworkers' and machinists' unions) for not responding to the exigencies of the modern economy. But as anyone who follows GM, Ford, or Boeing (prior to Condit leaving) knows, management is just as capable of sticking its head in the sand.

4. Finally, and most importantly, it takes two to tango. Every detail of every single bad union contract was assented to by management and the corporation. People need to stop blaming unions alone for braindead contract provisions.

I'd guess that McArdle would say that corporate structural rigidities are a necessary evil while unions aren't. That's a coherent if simplistic worldview, but denying that it's union-bashing isn't coherent.

Why do you, or anyone else for that matter, take McMegan seriously?

And how did she get a job at the Atlantic?

She is a twit with obviously no real world experience from which to draw. Yes, what a shock that workers would be concerned over the treatment of seniority in a merger situation -- and really what jerks they must be to stand in the path of a merger that no doubt will serve the public interest impeccably.

I once went out to eat and the waiter was really slow when it came to refilling my water. This shows that restaurants cannot succeed in the modern economy and are institutions of the past.

It isn't "strange" at all. McArdle makes her living primarily consulting for corporations, not from writing.
In that world, any expression of sympathy or even tolerance for labor is deeply taboo. Why the Atlantic feels the need to give this pathetic right-wing shill a forum is beyond me. Why not just have the Chamber of Commerce send over press releases and post them directly to their website? That'd at least save them the expense of paying McArdle a salary.

Where is the labor movement and union influence in this one: The EADS' air tanker contract win on Friday ensures that our USAF will soon be flying French Airbus. That’s a $35-100 Billion deal and a loss of ~9000 American jobs. (Don't try to say the EADS front, Northrup Grumman will get equal American jobs to Boeing). What are we thinking? Why not Aeroflot? Or better yet - the Chinese -- we might have gotten Boeing planes made with cheap Chinese labor and helped reduce their unemployment!