Monopsony vs. Union

[whatdoido]

I was just curious, and I thought this was the place to ask. If the workers in a monopsonized labor market in a small town dominated by a big firm or company were somehow unionized, would the union be able to strike and force the firm to hire at equilibrium wage and employment? Just curious.

And does anybody know if this question has been addressed.

[claphands]

I would doubt that a union would be so powerful that it could force a business that managed to get a monopolized labor market to pay at equilibrium wages, nor do I think would a union would work to necessarily achieve equilibrium wage values in the first place.

[buzios]

^^Agreed. I'm pretty sure unions normally work to achieve a wage rate above equilibrium and an employment level below. Else, there wouldn't be much need for them.
I also don't think a union would work in a monopsony. I can't imagine how much bargaining power they would have, even collectively, if there was only one employer.

[whatdoido]

I think if a union has enough funds to support a few thousand workers for a few weeks then I think there could certainly be some kind of upward force on wages in a monopsony. I guess if the supply of workers was unlimited, then when people quit the company could hire new workers, but I don't think this is possible.

To Art., if a monopsony pays low wages and hires less than the equilibrium number of employees, I think there would be a need for a union to intervene.

I guess I really don't know that much about it, it was just a thought ha.