Meet the Wealth Gap

[dt3]

I've worked for 3 different companies in 3 different at-will employment states, 1 was a small company, 1 was a small subsidiary of a huge company, and the current one is just a massive company of over 20,000 people. None of them are/were unionized, and I've never encountered a single problem that I felt a union would've been able to solve better than I did on my own. I've never even met anybody at the companies who felt like it would improve if it was unionized. So when people say things like "most businesses treat people bad without unions", I find it very hard to believe.

 

[Minor Axis]

I've worked for 3 different companies in 3 different at-will employment states, 1 was a small company, 1 was a small subsidiary of a huge company, and the current one is just a massive company of over 20,000 people. None of them are/were unionized, and I've never encountered a single problem that I felt a union would've been able to solve better than I did on my own. I've never even met anybody at the companies who felt like it would improve if it was unionized. So when people say things like "most businesses treat people bad without unions", I find it very hard to believe.

Historically there are lots and lots of cases to use as example. Unions typically pop up in manufacturing assembly line work, (except a large percentage of those have gone overseas), and the transportation industry. What kind of companies do you work for?

 

[dt3]

Historically there are lots and lots of cases to use as example. Unions typically pop up in manufacturing assembly line work, (except a large percentage of those have gone overseas), and the transportation industry. What kind of companies do you work for?

The first two were manufacturing where the majority of the workers were "unskilled labor" or whatever you want to call them. :dunno

 

[Minor Axis]

The first two were manufacturing where the majority of the workers were "unskilled labor" or whatever you want to call them. :dunno

Well, unskilled, they don't deserve a union. (no need to read more into this statement, just weak humor).

 

[Accountable]

Historically there are lots and lots of cases to use as example. Unions typically pop up in manufacturing assembly line work, (except a large percentage of those have gone overseas), and the transportation industry. What kind of companies do you work for?

Historically, yes. Today treatment is better because of union actions of the past. The threat of unions keep things honest today. There's no need to unionize unless there's a need to unionize, and so long as an employer makes sure that conditions stay good enough, employees won't unionize.

 

[Minor Axis]

Historically, yes. Today treatment is better because of union actions of the past. The threat of unions keep things honest today. There's no need to unionize unless there's a need to unionize, and so long as an employer makes sure that conditions stay good enough, employees won't unionize.

Not to belittle what you are saying, because a good work environment and happy dedicated employees is always the best situation for the company, long term.

However, I know that working for a major airline, I can't imagine what it would like to work without a contract. There are thousands of ways where the employee's quality of life can be adversely effected by day to day decisions and monthly schedules, based on the work rules that would not be there without a contract. I would not be surprised if manufacturing employees are threatened today on some level with the prospect of seeing their factory pull up stakes and head South, East or West to some destination outside the border.

 

[Tangerine]

. I would not be surprised if manufacturing employees are threatened today on some level with the prospect of seeing their factory pull up stakes and head South, East or West to some destination outside the border.

You mean like the Big 3 auto makers already DID primarily because of unmanageable union labor costs?

 

[Accountable]

Not to belittle what you are saying, because a good work environment and happy dedicated employees is always the best situation for the company, long term.

However, I know that working for a major airline, I can't imagine what it would like to work without a contract. There are thousands of ways where the employee's quality of life can be adversely effected by day to day decisions and monthly schedules, based on the work rules that would not be there without a contract. I would not be surprised if manufacturing employees are threatened today on some level with the prospect of seeing their factory pull up stakes and head South, East or West to some destination outside the border.

I would imagine that more venture capitalists would be interested in investing in a new venture where the employee base would not be union at first (but very quickly could unionize if management screwed them over) rather than where they would have to enter into an adversarial arrangement with a union before the first employee is hired. Not having the cash or cajones to be a venture capitalist, I could easily be wrong.

Just like the right to bear arms does not necessitate actually bearing arms, the right to unionize does not necessitate actually unionizing. Let's not forget that as powerful and effective as unions can be, union organizers have a tendency to fuck up a good thing by continually trying to justify their paycheck and pushing things too far.

 

[Minor Axis]

Let's not forget that as powerful and effective as unions can be, union organizers have a tendency to fuck up a good thing by continually trying to justify their paycheck and pushing things too far.

Absolutely. Unions are composed of people, just like corporate board rooms. Within the last 10 years I observed a union walk off a cliff based on bad advice and they all lost their jobs. (I'd rather not say who.)

 

[Accountable]

We've got to stop with this agreeing stuff.

 

[Nguyen]

It's pronounced Sydney*

I just thought it would be an interesting article to post here. You don't see anything ethically wrong with someone earning a measly $1.82 an hour?

Nobody has a right to any money at all. If he doesn't like it, he can quit. You aren't anyone else's responsibility, and wealth has to be produced by actual, individual people; it does not spring like Athena from the brow of Zeus.

And, frankly, $1.82 per hour is a fortune compared to the mean income of most people on this planet (much less in history).

Maybe if the economy wasn't being continually wrecked and monopolized by state decrees the guy could get a better paying job, but that is neither here nor there. The point is no one owes him anything.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Nobody has a right to any money at all.

If you're in some form of employment, your employer is obligated by law to provide remuneration in exchange for the labor you provide. So basically, if you have a job (like in the case of this individual), you have a legal right to be paid.

And, frankly, $1.82 per hour is a fortune compared to the mean income of most people on this planet (much less in history).

That may be so, but in the context of a First-world, industrialized country, that kind of wage is appalling. How can you expect anyone to survive on a wage 4.8 times less than the standard minimum wage?

Maybe if the economy wasn't being continually wrecked and monopolized by state decrees the guy could get a better paying job, but that is neither here nor there. The point is no one owes him anything.

Right, it's the governments fault that this man is only earning $1.82 an hour. Not the employer, who is actually paying him, but the government. This individual would be getting better paid if his employer adhered to these so-called 'state decrees', you know, the ones that stipulate things like, say, a minimum wage.

 

[Nguyen]

If you're in some form of employment, your employer is obligated by law to provide remuneration in exchange for the labor you provide. So basically, if you have a job (like in the case of this individual), you have a legal right to be paid.

Rights and duties are established by contract. But only to the terms of the contract which was formed without threat of force.

That may be so, but in the context of a First-world, industrialized country, that kind of wage is appalling. How can you expect anyone to survive on a wage 4.8 times less than the standard minimum wage?

That's not my business, nor is it yours, nor is it his employer's. The fact that the government drives up prices with inflation and regulation, but that isn't the employer's fault (nor is it the employee's) - it's just an unfortunate fact of the hampered economy. All minimum wages do is ensure unemployment for those who marginal productivity falls below it.

Right, it's the governments fault that this man is only earning $1.82 an hour. Not the employer, who is actually paying him, but the government. This individual would be getting better paid if his employer adhered to these so-called 'state decrees', you know, the ones that stipulate things like, say, a minimum wage.

The man isn't owed any money by his employer at all except for what is stipulated in a free contract. He is lucky to have a job at all. They owe him nothing, and as I said, if he does not like it he can quit.

 

[Minor Axis]

Nobody has a right to any money at all. If he doesn't like it, he can quit.

Oh boy, another one. :smiley24:

The man isn't owed any money by his employer at all except for what is stipulated in a free contract. He is lucky to have a job at all. They owe him nothing, and as I said, if he does not like it he can quit.

Or a million of them can burn down the place and start over.

 

[Nguyen]

Or a million of them can burn down the place and start over.

Mob violence is always possible. They're still a mob.
Democracy is individual ignorance writ large.

 

[Minor Axis]

Mob violence is always possible. They're still a mob.
Democracy is individual ignorance writ large.

My point went sailing right over your head or you chose to ignore it.