How should I take the fact that you refuse to address my actual argument, and instead wish to complain and insult me over arguments I never made?

You have yet to prove this is the case. Your continued assertion that the employer raised salaries is not proof.

Luke tried to rewrite the deal after the fact after already receiving the benefit of the deal.

Once again, an unsubstantiated claim on your part. If the benefit you are talking about is increased wages, then you should know that her wages increased and have a citation for that.

That’s just common sense

Common sense and academic integrity would be that you acknowledge that the increased savings from MBA could be put totally into profits or any of a million other potential outlays, and not soley into salaries. Common sense and academic integrity would be that you actually have a citation for your assertion that the Baptist Health increased wages.

No one has given me any reason to treat the Alabama market for hospital labor any differently than any other labor market.

Its not about the labor market, imperical evidence, supply and demand, mircoeconomics or anything else you want to throw out there.

This is whether you have direct knowledge that Baptist Health increased wages because of the MBA agreement. Its a real simple question. Either you do or you do not.

As you have not posted any citation that supports your claim(s). I’ll take this as another obfuscation of the issue and that you do not have any proof that Baptist Health raised salaries because of the MBA agreement.

That’s just common sense, and it’s common sense backed up by the empirical evidence that increased litigation has reduced wages, cited in my law review article. No one has given me any reason to treat the Alabama market for hospital labor any differently than any other labor market.

Not only is this wrong, it is not what you asserted.

1) Your assertion was that because of the MBA, Baptist Health was able to offer Fonza higher wages. Your statement is a factual assertion. Either the wages went up, or they did not. Trying to bring the “law of supply and demand” into this is a smokescreen for an unproven assertion.

2) You make the assumption that a worker can jump from one salary to another an take their years of service with them.

They cannot.

So the question is whether the employee who does not want MBA wants to lose their years of service in a company, and even risk going to another company at a starting rate. In other words, there are more factors to this than “supply and demand,” none of which bear any impact on the truthfulness of your assertion that the wages offered Fonze went up.

I’m really not going to reargue basic principles of microeconomic theory.

No one is asking you to. To say that is what is being asked is a diversion and a bad one at that. What is being asked is that you support your assertion with facts.

Except that’s exactly what the law of supply and demand means. If, all else being equal, workers prefer employment without MBA to employment with MBA, then the hospital has to raise wages to compete—unless it was already offering higher wages or better conditions. (Or, if workers prefer MBA ceteris paribus, then what’s the problem? The non-MBA employers would be happy to have her.)

Again, if marginal costs/employee go up, an employer can either reduce wages or reduce employment. The converse is also true.

This is all a natural consequence of supply and demand and competitive markets. If you don’t want to accept the premise, fine–but then the problem is the lack of competitive markets (which noone has demonstrated) rather than the MBA. I’m really not going to reargue basic principles of microeconomic theory.

Of course, the problem here is that the law of “supply and demand” do not necessairly mean that a company will pay more in wages if the surrounding companies are paying the same rate.

There is no evidence that Baptist Health was paying higher wages to their employees after the BA agreement, or that their wages were higher than the surrounding competiton.

You yourself maintain that BA cuts costs for a company. What you have yet to show in this case is that those cost savings were given to the employees in wage increases for existing employees or higher starting salaries for new employees.

It is not for the reader here to disprove your claim as one cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to prove your claim that the wages increased or that Baptist Health offered higher wages because of the BA agreement.

You can restate that laws of supply and demand didn’t stop in Alabama, but that does not prove your position or support your claim.

Nor did you provide evidence that your statement about her wages being higher under a non-negotiated MBA was true.

While you may have a forthcoming article that argues the point, you made a an unsupported assertion in your OP about Stephanie Mencimer “taking advantage” of “higher wages,” wages not in evidence–even if their existence is posited by your apparent theory that non-negotiated MBA is always good for consumers and employees.

I see no evidence that the laws of economics and supply and demand cease to exist in Alabama or in the relevant labor market. My assertion is therefore not unsupported. It is your claim that supply and demand is irrelevant that is unsupported. — TF

Yes, you said that, but it seems to be a bald assertion without supporting evidence. Just as likely, if not more so, wages were the same as they could or would have been with out MBA and the employer kept the savings, if any, from the MBA. But, your boner for non-negotiated mandatory binding arbitration seems to turn off your normally acute critical analysis skills.

BTW, it really is rude to respond in line rather than a subsequent post like a normal human. While it may be convenient for you not to have to quote the text you are responding too it is poor form.

This statement is:

(A) True, since every contract requires mutual consent;

(B) False, because performance can constitute acceptance;

(C) True, if the parties are merchants;

(D) False, if a promise is made to a counterparty inducing reasonably-foreseeable reliance therewith.

Answer: Choice (B) is the best response. According to the Restatement (2nd) of Contracts, “Where an offer invites an offeree to choose between acceptance by promise and acceptance by performance, the tender or beginning of the invited performance or a tender of a beginning of it is an acceptance by performance.”