there was no competition 30 years ago
FACT: Unionization increases incomenot just for union workers but also entire middle
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
there was no competition 30 years ago
It amazes me how the Republican party convinced people that offering livable wages, benefits, and vacation time is a bad thing. They convinced a large percentage of the American public that they shouldn't get a a salary to keep up with the cost of living. There are times when unions have to be reigned in as well but I firmly believe if they were to get rid of all unions, what little benefits the private sector still has they would quickly lose.
cheap labor = competition
cheap labor = competition
of course, but were competing with the rest of the world
Of course it does... but at what cost?
Worker's rights are important, but unions go way beyond that to the point that they put the industries and workers they serve in jeopardy
Not to mention its big business... you operate in a state where closed shops are legal, running a union is essentially a state subsidized business
The whole thing is wonky
We can force companies to pay workers more than what the free market says, or we can reinvest in the country to make American workers competitive and able to demand more pay legitimately w/o the legal armed robbery of closed shop work environments
Given America's competitive & middle class slide the choice seems pretty obvious to me
Worker's rights are important, but unions go way beyond that to the point that they put the industries and workers they serve in jeopardy
Not to mention its big business... you operate in a state where closed shops are legal, running a union is essentially a state subsidized business
The whole thing is wonky
We can force companies to pay workers more than what the free market says, or we can reinvest in the country to make American workers competitive and able to demand more pay legitimately w/o the legal armed robbery of closed shop work environments
Given America's competitive & middle class slide the choice seems pretty obvious to me
The problem is that workers' rights can't be guaranteed without some minimum form of worker organization. That's something the market simply can't handle, as history has shown time and time again. Any solution that elides big business itself while criticizing unions for being like big business simply won't address the root problem.
Ummmm every worker in the US has rights w/o collective bargaining... work laws and the power to enter litigation/arbitration w/an employer through the courts
Employers have all kinds of training and programs to protect workers from workplace dangers, from the physical to shyt like sexual harassment etc.
The reason why unions are so goofy is because now that a lot of the workplace danger/worker's rights stuff is out of the way, they are playing into American's sense of entitlement and trying to bully companies into paying workers far far more than they are really worth. Compound this with how expensive the govt is making necessities, be it housing, healthcare, higher education, you have this feedback loop of people legitimately and illegitimately feeling like they need to be paid more
America's problems are way deeper than "big business not paying workers enough"... if the American workforce had the skills that were relevant to today's global labor market, we could be earning the $$$ we feel we deserve w/o putting a gun to companies heads and extorting it from them
Bolded all becuz of unions
The only skill we dont have is not working for fukking free. So your saying the sweatshops that make all our shyt are becuz they have better education and training? Clearly you dont realize its just about money, as i said all that worked they shipped overseas. If they did that to save money, why are the products they ship back here the same price as when they were made here or more expensive. They simply want more of the profits, understandable sure, but theres gotta be a limit. Your fooling your self if you think those countries are better equipped than us.cheap labor is the only thing they offerd. Countries were the people live in squaller and pretty much slave camps like the Foxconn people in asia.
Ya I will say we as PEOPLE deserve more than this. As american we do also.
Yes extorting is asking a company to pay you a wage you can live on and take care of your family.
That got you trained good I see.
Employers have all kinds of training and programs to protect workers from workplace dangers, from the physical to shyt like sexual harassment etc.
Do they? These companies are so nice to offer this out of there own free time and cost.
Wonder why they do that. Probably out of the kind hearts. We know how companies love to spend money on things that dont make them cash.
Bruh, the free market right now says that the minimum we have to pay you isnt even enough to afford a roof over your head outside a crack house. Thats a problem. Minimum wage used to be enough to keep a FAMILY out of poverty.
Hell, that is actually wrong. The free market didnt decide to pay such a low wage, the government forced them, kicking and screaming i might add, to give people enough money to put them into poverty. If it was up to the free market these people would still be making less than 7 bucks an hour.
Its amazing how when unions started being busted up profits and wealth for the 1% skyrocketed and middle class wages stagnated.
I know you don't mean it this way, but the above amounts to status quo apologism (minus modern union behavior,) since it doesn't propose any new paradigm, and is therefore thoroughly refuted by history itself- most workers' rights were the result of union activity and did not precede them. The power relations between employed and (bigger) employers were not in any way fair before said historical advances, despite these de jure individual rights.
The real reason unions have become negative is that they have become isomorphic with respect to the corporations they were meant to combat. This is a historical process that began in the early 70s, if not earlier. The modern corporate model of organization is itself anti-worker (and ultimately anti-market.) It has less to do with a sense of entitlement and more to do with the corporate form of organization.
That's true. Unions do work to get their union members higher wages. That's what the union bosses do for a living. So, the plus is that businesses don't take advantage of underpaying employees to increase their profit margin.
The flipside is that union activity has pushed companies, who operate on a global level, to move manufacturing operations to places where there are no unions. Not just the US, but in Europe. VW has moved operations to Mexico because the German auto unions have made building German-made cars uncompetitive price-wise.
The flipside is that union activity has pushed companies, who operate on a global level, to move manufacturing operations to places where there are no unions. Not just the US, but in Europe. VW has moved operations to Mexico because the German auto unions have made building German-made cars uncompetitive price-wise.
Wo wo wo wo wo.
First of all, theres two sides to the affordability of a place to live. There's what you can pay, and there's what they charge for it. It's true that wages for middle class have stagnated, but its also true that the cost of housing has skyrocketed, largely due to the govt propping up the housing market. If the govt stopped propping up the market, prices would drop immediately to realistic levels that avg people could afford. And banks would only lend to people who could actually pay for & afford houses (and the rent market would follow suit).
Second of all, the idea that the companies should "give" anyone anything is ridiculous. Employment is a contract. I put it like this. Say you have a lawn and you want me to mow it. Should you and I negotiate a price, or should the govt inflate my prices beyond what you and I would agree on naturally because I feel like I can't afford to live on whatever we agree on? Not to mention there is a whole underclass of people living in the US and working for less than minimum wage and doing OK
Third of all this is one of the goofiest confusings of correlation for causation I've ever seen here. Do you know how wealth works????
You want to know the real ugly truth? Americans just don't create the labor that generates the income to support the lifestyles we feel like we need. Part of that is systematic failure to equip us with the tools to be competitive, but part of it is also just a decline in American work ethic. Back in the day people would be HAPPY to have a job doing hard physical labor, and they would bust their ass at it... now all we do is complain and expect the world to be handed to us. And all the immigrants are coming over w/the hunger we used to have and taking shyt over. We need to get off our asses and get our heads in the fukking game, cause we are losing real bad
Back in the day one person could bust their ass, work hard, and supply a good life for their entire family. Now 2 people busting their ass working that same type of job cant afford that same quality of life. If i bust my ass and see some real benefits im going to feel a lot better about it than if i was working hard for peanuts.
Who is working in the US making less than minimum wage and doing "ok"? What is your definition of "ok"?
And on to your negotiation argument. What do you think happens if an auto worker on the line walks into his managers office and tries to negotiate an extra week of vacation or sick leave on his own? Do you think he gets it?
Broke Wave
The GOAT
If you are busting your ass at a job that just doesn't pay a lot, what do you expect?
Back in the days companies could afford to lavish employees with all kinds of pay and benefits because we had a global monopoly in many industries (no India/China and Europe was rebuilding from the war). Now a steelworker here is competing with a steelworker in China who is happy to take 10% of the American worker's pay. How does forcing American companies to pay their workers more solve that?
To me "ok" is having food + shelter + $$$ left over. Illegal immigrants come here, work for less than minimum wage, have roofs over their heads and food on their plates and still manage to send money back home.
Why does he need that extra time? IF he really needs it, would he be willing to take that time unpaid?
Lets say you are this dude looking for an extra week of paid vacation. Explain how you would make the case to your manager to give you an extra week of pay for no work?