The Right to Work for less money

[Koios]

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service of other companies, get back from the other companies, and equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate to a degree our shrinking middle class wealth, which fuck companies in the ass, since we customers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

But what you are contending we should do simply doesn't work that way. The value of something can not be set arbitrarily. For the guy that claims to have studied economics I would think you would understand this concept. The value of anything is determined by scarcity and demand. Something's value, labor in this case, can't arbitrarily jump from $10/hr to $15/hr without one of those other factors changing as well. This is basic supply and demand curve stuff, which they teach in basic econ which you claimed to have studied. And even if some law were passed that made that happen it wouldn't have the outcome you think it would. Wage increases to that extent across such so much of labor force don't happen in a vacuum. The costs of goods and services are going to go up accordingly. In short raising minimum wages is a) immoral because you don't have the right to be the only person in the transaction that gets a say in what you make and b) it's impossible because you can't raise the cost of something in vacuum and expect that all other market conditions are going to remain where they were before you arbitrarily raised wages.

Sure it can, and is, frequently, by companies, governments, people, organizations (OPEC) etc.

But it is not arbitrary. We can set targets based on past times (1950 the FMW went up 87.5%). Unemployment at the same time, went from 6.5% in 1950, to 2.7% just 24 months later. Consider within the context of other factors, and you can predict certain benefits from broad-based wage increasing.

Next, ask where you want to go: 4% GDP increase; eliminate 2 or 3 percentage points on unemployment? Then look at times that happened, or nearly did, and what the economic impact was. And of course experiment: if bad shit happens, course correct. Or if good things happen, debrief, and add if needed, or save it in the quiver for times the economy needs the boost.

Be strategic, and NOT ARBITRARY!!!

 

[kwc57]

That's a bit old school. It was the bullshit many believed in 80s, which parallels the point at which unions become less influential, wages stopped pacing productivity, and median household incomes plummeted, adjusting for inflation.

But there's an upside: we proved the fucking opposite. Unions are highly useful in growing our middle class. Many now know better, while some, obviously are too fucking blind to see it. Ya feel me, blind man?

They did a wonderful job of growing the middle class in Detroit, didn't they?

No. We fucked Detroit. They paid good wages so auto workers coould buy the stuff our companies make. But we, to an increasing degree did not reciprocate, and pay such that our workers could buy new cars every coupla years or whatever. Also we bought foriegn cars, thinking they'd last longer, since now we're fucking ourselves and Detroit in the ass with our lower wages, and needing our cheap Japanese rollerskate to last 15 years.

Junior high or early high school?

 

[Koios]

They did a wonderful job of growing the middle class in Detroit, didn't they?

No. We fucked Detroit. They paid good wages so auto workers coould buy the stuff our companies make. But we, to an increasing degree did not reciprocate, and pay such that our workers could buy new cars every coupla years or whatever. Also we bought foriegn cars, thinking they'd last longer, since now we're fucking ourselves and Detroit in the ass with our lower wages, and needing our cheap Japanese rollerskate to last 15 years.

Junior high or early high school?

I'd encourage you to consider both.

 

[MikeK]

They did a wonderful job of growing the middle class in Detroit, didn't they?

Detroit is a good example of bad union management. That is a fact I saw for myself back in the sixties when I bought a 1964 Pontiac Catalina that had a bad smell in it throughout the first summer. When the driver's side window came off the track and the door panel was removed to fix it they found an empty Pepsi can and the remains of a partially finished sandwich of some kind, which accounts for the smell.

What this revealed was a decline in quality due to increasing prevalence of low-life employees whom management was unable to purge due to the wrongful application of union power. While this is definitely wrong it is by no means typical of all unions and it should not be allowed to foster a prejudice against all unions.

And it should be kept in mind that unions are democracies. Leadership is elected and policies are adopted and controlled by membership. Obviously the UAW became infested with low-lifes and the result was the near failure of the U.S. auto industry because of the gradual decrease in quality of U.S. cars compared with the Japanese and Germans.

By all means drastic action must be taken by union membership to weed out the cause of this problem. But by no means should the baby be tossed out with the bathwater. What happened in Detroit is something which can be fixed -- and a properly managed union can fix it. Union leaders know who the problem workers are and they should not be protected.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isn't about the right to work for less money. It's about the right to work and not being forced to join a union. Let's cut the bullshit. And there's at least 2 if not 3 other threads on this.

Gee, okay, let's cut the bullshit. There are about 500 threads on "Obama's a Marxist, racist, socialist, globalist, statist and not an American; it's the Obama Great Recession and he hates white people, is a Muslim and want's to take everyone's gun away, raise taxes on eveyone, stole the election and cheated his way into college, law school the state and US Senate, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc."

There should be more threads on the effort of the GOP leadership and there efforts to remake America into a Fascist Plutocracy, for there is evidence to support such a conclusion - Walker, Snyder, Scott, Bachmann, Norquist, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox & Friends, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz - shall I go on?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Assuming one wishes to lower their expectations of their fellow man to the point where the assume everyone else has no choice but to be dependent on government, I suppose, yes, you're right.

If you're working for less money, you pay lower taxes. The poorer the working class gets,

the bigger the share of our taxes gets paid by the upper income taxpayers.

Which rides upon the assumption that all of the people making less money will stay there and will become government dependents because according to your argument they would have to be too stupid for any other outcome to be possible.

Teachers and firefighters aren't stupid people. And yet conservatives want to do everything in their power to make those people work for less, within their professions.

 

[eflatminor]

Teachers...aren't stupid people.

Debatable. In Chicago, the teachers are, on average, less intelligent than the students they're supposed to be teaching.

In Illinois, all high school juniors and seniors are required to take the ACT test, whether they plan to attend college or not. Public school teachers in Chicago who took the test when they were in high school averaged a score of 19 out of a possible 36 — which is worse than the average median score for all students nationwide. In fact, Illinois students beat the teachers, scoring a 21 on average.

But the good news is that Chicago teachers recently signed a union deal that will boost average teacher compensation into the $100,000 range: A 42 percent increase over the last 10 years that makes Chicago teachers among the highest paid in the nation.

Stupid, but well compensated. Just sayin'...

 

[The Professor]

In the private sector workers themselves have rejected unions. The problem is that the unions cannot accept their decision and are trying to get the government to FORCE them into unionism.

That's the sad fucking truth.

Obama doesn't give a royal damn about the workers' rights, only the rights of his very rich union friends/contributors.

 

[tjvh]

Nobody should have to pay a third party to maintain employment in America.

 

[Bern80]

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service of other companies, get back from the other companies, and equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate to a degree our shrinking middle class wealth, which fuck companies in the ass, since we customers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

But what you are contending we should do simply doesn't work that way. The value of something can not be set arbitrarily. For the guy that claims to have studied economics I would think you would understand this concept. The value of anything is determined by scarcity and demand. Something's value, labor in this case, can't arbitrarily jump from $10/hr to $15/hr without one of those other factors changing as well. This is basic supply and demand curve stuff, which they teach in basic econ which you claimed to have studied. And even if some law were passed that made that happen it wouldn't have the outcome you think it would. Wage increases to that extent across such so much of labor force don't happen in a vacuum. The costs of goods and services are going to go up accordingly. In short raising minimum wages is a) immoral because you don't have the right to be the only person in the transaction that gets a say in what you make and b) it's impossible because you can't raise the cost of something in vacuum and expect that all other market conditions are going to remain where they were before you arbitrarily raised wages.

That's some nice theory.

No theory about it. That's pretty basic economics.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

Yes, that's what it's all about but the ultimate goal is the end of minimum wage.

That's what big scum like the Kochs first went after but backed off when people raised a stink. Not they get little scum, like Scott Walker to do the dirty work.

rw's fall for it and next thing we hear is that, for the good of the country, min wage has got to go.

If they can get that pst us, all other working class wages plummet.

 

[Bern80]

If you're working for less money, you pay lower taxes. The poorer the working class gets,

the bigger the share of our taxes gets paid by the upper income taxpayers.

Which rides upon the assumption that all of the people making less money will stay there and will become government dependents because according to your argument they would have to be too stupid for any other outcome to be possible.

Teachers and firefighters aren't stupid people. And yet conservatives want to do everything in their power to make those people work for less, within their professions.

No they don't. I completely agree with a person being able to make as much they can. I simply think that should be based on merit, as opposed to lefties like you who thinks people ought to paid based on what they need.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

Yes, that's what it's all about but the ultimate goal is the end of minimum wage.

That's what big scum like the Kochs first went after but backed off when people raised a stink. Not they get little scum, like Scott Walker to do the dirty work.

rw's fall for it and next thing we hear is that, for the good of the country, min wage has got to go.

If they can get that pst us, all other working class wages plummet.

I think maybe you missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't clear. What I'm asking about is this concept of a "right to work for less money". Obama seems to be deriding it, but I think it is, in fact, an important right - one that government should be protecting rather than dismissing and violating.

 

[Trajan]

Oh whatthefuck ever. What about the right to work and not be forced to join a club, forced to pay for the privilege of being in that club and be told how to vote and think?

Obama's a fucking tool who is the lucky recipient of a gazillion union $$ confiscated from its brain-dead members... of course he's "pro-union".

he went s far as to mis-characterize it to as to them losing collective bargaining rights, which they have not.

 

[Bern80]

So that their members are not priced out of the job. Non union folks can be brought in, temporarily, but at the same cost. (no economic benefit to employer for hiring non-members). RTW merely remove the provision that non union can only be temporary. The idea, and all it accomplishes, is to starve unions of funds, by lowering dues they collect.

Republicans got on the union-hate bandwagon, largely because teachers unions sided with Dems and became a huge force of motivated volunteers for getting out the vote on election day. And it's kinda short sighted, since union johnny lunchbuckets were Reagan Dems and Reps, by a large margin. Hell; Alaska is a Red State and has the highest level of unionization of all 50 states. Kinda stupid, but something we've come to expect from Republicans, whose stupidity never ceases to amaze.

The only stupidity here is the notion that this is somehow a bad thing. Now a person gets to work for an employer that is mostly unionized with the confidence that they will succeed or fail on their own merits. The fact that you wouldn't reply to my earlier post suggest your running out of legs to stand on in this debate.

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, that all businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service to other companies, get back from the other companies, an equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate somewhat our shrinking middle class wealth, which fucks companies in the ass, since we cneed ustomers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

Ideally we would do away with the minimum wage all together. It's completely unnecessary.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In the private sector workers themselves have rejected unions. The problem is that the unions cannot accept their decision and are trying to get the government to FORCE them into unionism.

That's the sad fucking truth.

Obama doesn't give a royal damn about the workers' rights, only the rights of his very rich union friends/contributors.

Yeah cuz puddly little unions have so much more money than Kochs, Adelson, Romney.

Use your head.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People don't have a right to work for less money? I've known people who have left nice jobs to work for substantially less at non-profits and whatnot. Are you guys saying they should be prohibited from doing this?

Really?

 

[Bern80]

For the union it is a bad thing, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to their dues-paying members.

For Republicans it is stupid, since many of the angry white males they're pandering to are union joes. But since all Republicans have the IQs of vegetables, many of those union Reps just say they hate the union and having to pay dues, while enjoying the higher pay and benefits. Contradictions are no problemo in service of a comforting delusion.

Meanwhile, as a former marketing executive, I like high wages, since it grows the market and creates something companies can invest in to get after. Unions only create upward pressure, and thus benefit somewhat, markets, businesses rely on to be successful. The problem is it's unlevel, but was thought to be a market-based alternative to being commie, back in the day. The thought was that if both management and workers had a say, the natural balance of those forces would achieve pay for actual worth.

Ideally, we'd set wage minimums nationally, to raise the value of the market (middle class) in a way that's balanced, so employers paying wages that add value in service of other companies, get back from the other companies, and equal contribution to the value chain. That would be my preferred. But failing that, thank goodness workers are carrying the water for us, and organizing to a degree, helping to mitigate to a degree our shrinking middle class wealth, which fuck companies in the ass, since we customers who can afford to buy our shit.

None too complicated.

But what you are contending we should do simply doesn't work that way. The value of something can not be set arbitrarily. For the guy that claims to have studied economics I would think you would understand this concept. The value of anything is determined by scarcity and demand. Something's value, labor in this case, can't arbitrarily jump from $10/hr to $15/hr without one of those other factors changing as well. This is basic supply and demand curve stuff, which they teach in basic econ which you claimed to have studied. And even if some law were passed that made that happen it wouldn't have the outcome you think it would. Wage increases to that extent across such so much of labor force don't happen in a vacuum. The costs of goods and services are going to go up accordingly. In short raising minimum wages is a) immoral because you don't have the right to be the only person in the transaction that gets a say in what you make and b) it's impossible because you can't raise the cost of something in vacuum and expect that all other market conditions are going to remain where they were before you arbitrarily raised wages.

Sure it can, and is, frequently, by companies, governments, people, organizations (OPEC) etc.

But it is not arbitrary. We can set targets based on past times (1950 the FMW went up 87.5%). Unemployment at the same time, went from 6.5% in 1950, to 2.7% just 24 months later. Consider within the context of other factors, and you can predict certain benefits from broad-based wage increasing.

Next, ask where you want to go: 4% GDP increase; eliminate 2 or 3 percentage points on unemployment? Then look at times that happened, or nearly did, and what the economic impact was. And of course experiment: if bad shit happens, course correct. Or if good things happen, debrief, and add if needed, or save it in the quiver for times the economy needs the boost.

Be strategic, and NOT ARBITRARY!!!

Or if you want to make more money, do something that's worth more money.

 

[Trajan]

I'm not sure what to think about 'Right to Work' laws in general. As far as I see it, if a union can persuade an employer to run a 'closed shop' (ie require that all employees are union members) then the employer should be able to agree to such terms. But the Right to Work laws, most of which ban this kind of exclusive labor contract - or neuter it to a degree, have broad appeal because of the general perception that unions negotiate with unfair advantage, essentially forcing employers into such agreements via collective bargaining rules.

Yesterday, on the radio, I heard Obama claim that the Right to Work laws are really about "the right to work for less money". This comment has been ringing in my ears and its finally dawned on my how utterly profound and true it really is. So, what do you all say? Is it important to protect the right to work for less money? Or should such a vile act be deemed a crime?

Yes, that's what it's all about but the ultimate goal is the end of minimum wage.

That's what big scum like the Kochs first went after but backed off when people raised a stink. Not they get little scum, like Scott Walker to do the dirty work.

rw's fall for it and next thing we hear is that, for the good of the country, min wage has got to go.

If they can get that pst us, all other working class wages plummet.

I think maybe you missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't clear. What I'm asking about is this concept of a "right to work for less money". Obama seems to be deriding it, but I think it is, in fact, an important right - one that government should be protecting rather than dismissing and violating.

you lost me, dismissing and violating deriding what? the right not to be forced to act against what one considers or perceives as their own interests?



as a general note; I have to say I am a little tired of htis amdin teling us along with their media lackeys that elections have consequences. then when that statement is put to the test by anyone but them- its a travesty. Michigan elected their rep. senate, house, and gov. they acted and ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In the private sector workers themselves have rejected unions. The problem is that the unions cannot accept their decision and are trying to get the government to FORCE them into unionism.

That's the sad fucking truth.

Obama doesn't give a royal damn about the workers' rights, only the rights of his very rich union friends/contributors.

Yeah cuz puddly little unions have so much more money than Kochs, Adelson, Romney.

Use your head.

Unions have spent $4,400,000,000 since 2005 on direct contributions alone... according to FEC filings, that is only about 1/4 of all spending on political activites.

They have plenty money bub.