Pleasure, R. J. (2000, Fall). Collective Bargaining and the Labor Management Antitrust Exemption. Journal of Labor Research (21), p. 557.
Pleasure presents a literature review in order to put forth that there are significant gaps in the application of antitrust legislation regarding employees and independent contractors in the workplace. By reviewing Supreme Court decisions, legislation passed during the late 1800s and early 1900s, injunctions against labor unions and the current environment (which, according to Pleasure, may well be seeking to impose additional antitrust limitations on workers), Pleasure presents an argument that the goal of the Sherman Antitrust Act was not to limit the ability of workers to organize and associate, but was rather intended to protect the consuming public from the organization of companies to control prices of goods (Pleasure, 2000, p. 558).
The heart of Pleasure's article rests on the growing tendency of companies to use independent contractors instead of traditional employees to perform everyday tasks. Employees would be permitted to organize without violating antitrust regulations, but independent contractors are not granted the same opportunity, even when they are performing the exact jobs as those done by employees. This, according to Pleasure, unfairly restricts their right to unionize and associate, and results in downward pressure on wages as well as lower social benefits to the larger community (Pleasure, 2000, p. 560).
This result comes from the behavior of companies in the market which act as monopsonists (single buyers) as well as monopolies (single sellers). Single buyers are able to drive down the cost of the inputs that they purchase (labor, in this instance) and thus put downward pressure on wages even when these wages are paid to independent contractors. When contractors are unable to form collective bargaining units due to antitrust violation, they are, according to P...