Some thoughts on unions (page 16)

lisaBObeesa

People need to be able to LIVE. Even the poor people at the bottom who are not able to get a college education.

This is not an answer, it is another assertion. Is this all that you have? If you want to convince me you need to provide something more than labor union slogans.

My assertion is that people need to be able to live. Even the poor people at the bottom who are not able to get a college education.

Do you disputed this?

I'm out.

I don't know what else to say. I think labor should be able to make a living wage. Companies would pay pennies and hour if they could get away with it and blame it on 'the market.' Unions are needed to ballance the power between the companies and the workers at the bottom.

XJW4EVR

My assertion is that people need to be able to live. Even the poor people at the bottom who are not able to get a college education.
Do you disputed this?

My dispute is that you seem to think that there is some sort of "right" to a living wage. I have asked you for the basis of this "right" and you seem to be ignoring this request, and instead trot out this emotional argument. So again, do you have any sort of argument that demonstrates why there is a "right" to a living wage, or are you just going to issue forth more emotional pablum?

drewcoul

Labor unions actually drive non union wages down. When a company must pay a higher wage than they would otherwise pay due to union negotiations, even though the company agrees to the wages, they will not hire as many employees as they would necessarily like to because they cannot afford it. This displaces otherwise qualified workers into the non union workforce. This increases the supply of non union employees competing for jobs. Since there is therefore more unemployed workers looking for less jobs, this drives the wages down since many of these workers will be willing to work for less money just to have a job.

It is true that unions raise wages of their members in relation the same non-union occupations. It is estimated that the union wage advantage is about 15%.

It is absurd to suggest that just because a worker is a union worker, they are going to do a better job than a non-union worker or vise-a-versa. As far as productivity goes, unions more often cause a decrease in overall productivity and efficiency because they are reliant on seniority in preferred work assignments. This many times impedes a more efficient or capable worker from getting promoted simply because they don't have as much seniority as someone else who may not be as capable, or efficient.

Unions also require more employees than necessary be hired due to job limitations. For example, a union millwright may not be able to do electrical, or plumbing work which would require the employer to hire the plumber, and the electrician to do the work that the millwright may be capable of performing when it becomes necessary in his job as a millwright. Collectively, these innefficiencies are a huge source of waste in the U.S.

XJW4EVR

I don't know what else to say. I think labor should make a living wage. Companies would pay pennies and hour if they could get away with it and blame it on 'the market.' Unions are needed to ballance the power between the companies and the workers at the bottom.

This statement is usually said by a person that has never made a payroll in their life. I could be wrong in your case, and if I am, I stand corrected. Having had to make a payroll, I did not look to pay pennies to an employee. Most employers know what the going rate for a position is, and they are not going to deliberately underpay someone, knowing that this underpaid employee will leave them at any moment for a similar job that pays better. Hiring an employee is incredibly expensive, as there is a learning curve that every job has. Most employers hate hiring new people for this reason.

There is no race to the bottom. If there is a lack of jobs in the U.S. then there is one place to focus blame. The stupid regulations imposed on business by liberals and their lackeys in governmental power. It is the over regulation of business that has driven them out of California. THat, however, is an issue for another thread.

lisaBObeesa

My dispute is that you seem to think that there is some sort of "right" to a living wage. I have asked you for the basis of this "right" and you seem to be ignoring this request, and instead trot out this emotional argument. So again, do you have any sort of argument that demonstrates why there is a "right" to a living wage, or are you just going to issue forth more emotional pablum?

Ok, so you DON'T think that people have a right to be able to work an honest 8 hours and be able to put food on the table?

I guess this is just where we fundamentally don't agree.

I beleive that the companies that are making $$$$$$$$$ off the backs of labor have responsiblity to that labor. A man has to be able to feed and shelter his family.

And to clarify, I don't think every single job should pay a 'living wage.' Clearly there is a place for the minimum wage job for teenagers and the like.

But I do belive that there needs to be jobs out there that pay enough to get by... a living wage.

I suppose that I am emotional about this stuff. I feel very strongly about it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Please believe me, it will not be good for our society to have an even larger group of people who can't go to college and can't get a job that will pay the rent. Those people will find other things to do. And it will cost us all dearly.

I just have to leave this conversation now.

Carry on, all who have a stomach for it...

moshe

Politicians are deceived into believing that the democratic system gives the elected government the right to pass any and all laws that oppress the common working class, while rewarding the top 2% income earners with laws that protect their profits- earned from the sweat of the bottom class of workers.

I don't advocate anarchy, but hungry people can turn from the cowed unemployed to violent protesters in less than a week. . Our government has thrown the unemployed under the bus and admitted that they have no desire to put the 99er's back to work.- meanwhile the stock market is doing great and banks are doing great.

XJW4EVR

Ok, so you DON'T think that people have a right to be able to work an honest 8 hours and be able to put food on the table?
I guess this is just where we fundamentally don't agree.
I beleive that the companies that are making $$$$$$$$$ off the backs of labor have responsiblity to that labor. A man has to be able to feed and shelter his family.
And to clarify, I don't think every single job should pay a 'living wage.' Clearly there is a place for the minimum wage job for teenagers and the like.
But I do belive that there needs to be jobs out there that pay enough to get by... a living wage.
I suppose that I am emotional about this stuff. I feel very strongly about it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Please believe me, it will not be good for our society to have an even larger group of people who can't go to college and can't get a job that will pay the rent. Those people will find other things to do. And it will cost us all dearly.
I just have to leave this conversation now.
Carry on, all who have a stomach for it...

Alas, more emoting.

First, I don't believe that there are employees that put in an honest 8 hour day, but that is another discussion.

Second, my obligation as a business owner is not to the workers but to the customer I service or sell to. If they don't like the service or quality of food they recieve then they go to a place where they get the quality of service or food they want. My business goes under, and guess what, those employees are out of work.

Third, there are jobs out there that get people by. They may not be able to have cable, cell phones, cars, houses, but then again those are the prices you pay when you don't have a skill that is in demand or that can be easily found in another person.

Yes you are emotional, that is why you cannot provide a rational answer that gives me the reason why there is a right to a living wage.

Fifth, why are teens eliminated from a loving wage? Shouldn't they be able to pay for the things they want?

Sixth, why should anyone have the right to a living wage. Why shouldn't they get some sort of stipend just for being born? Oh, wait, we have that...it's called welfare.

DaCheech

@Dacheech - "1. the goverment gotta start taxing: imports high-->30-40%," - They'll pass that 30% increase onto you, the consumer.

Sam, I believe that this will encourage american made product. american product will not have the tax burden, so if those other companies try passing on a cost to the consumer, then voila!

DaCheech

I once worked for a GOOD owner, he came upon bad/slower times. He decided that certain people could be cut to 32 hours a week.

I put up with it for 6 months.

After that I interviewed for BIZARRO (I called the competition that name), they offered me 30% more than my regular salary. that mistake cost my old good owner my service. The other company paid well, but it was stressful (so that is why I called the first guy a GOOD owner).

skilled labor HAS competition.

Like I said again, if the democrats really cared for you guys, they had a chance to raise minimum wage............. did they?

garyneal

my dear gary,

the answer is not in the unions............

1. the goverment gotta start taxing: imports high-->30-40%,

Gee, that sounds a little like a TARIFF. Logically, it makes sense. If the companies operating in the states have to abide by labor and environmental laws that affect the price of the product while companies overseas don't, it makes sense to level the playing field a bit.

2. and get rid of state sales tax and enact a national sales tax of 20% or so (like europe)

I like the idea of a national sales tax. That will get even the people being paid 'under the table.'

Some thoughts on unions

Share this