The Right to Work for less money

[Bern80]

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

That's no theory. That's how it works in practice and there's plenty fo evidnce for it. Have you never seen a job application that said something like 'starting pay based on experience'? The leverage of the individual is manifested every day in job interviews. A person gets a job over someone else because they had leverage someone else didn't. The same applies once your hired. A manger has a group of people that work under him, but a couple are more productive then the rest. Knowing this those couple employees ask for a raise because they can argue they're more productive than some of their co-workers. That's their leverage. The manager than has to decide whether to grant the raise based on many factors. Can this productivity be easily replaced? Will the employee simply leave if the raise is not granted?

Individuals have all kinds of leverage. But this is the most frustrating part of the argument with libs. They simply refuse to place accountability on the individuals for which they advocate. This decrease in wages over time? There is absolutely NO WAY that can have anything to do with the changes in attitude of the the very people in that labor force you're advocating for, is there. This can't have anything to do with a society that feels increasingly more entitled to a certian standard of living, can it. Despite the fact it makes perfect sense. A group of people believes an outcome should simply be given to them as opposed to outcome that was previously worked for by the individual. Since the individual believes they are entitled to said outcome they put forth no effort to acquire it. The business world meanwhile has not adopted this mentality. Employers have not agreed with these people that wages ought to be based on what a person needs to acquire x standard of living. They continue to base the value of labor on market factors and individual productivity. As a result wages went down because labor decided to settle for what they could get without extra effort rather than put forth the extra effort to achieve the outcome they want.

 

[Sallow]

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

My son works in the IT world. As a single employee he has leverage.
Guess why.
Workers that need a mob to belong to for leverage have to because they are in most instances in an industry that competes for low skilled workers with no other skills that are forced to work in a limited market.
In most instances because of lack of foresight.

No he doesn't.

Where have you been for the last 13 years.

Outsourcing IT jobs was meant to take away that leverage.

I work in the same field. When I started..all you had to say was "UNIX" and you could name your price.

Now?

 

[kwc57]

What exactly qualifies as middle class living wage jobs?
What exactly qualifies as lower class living wage jobs?
What exactly qualifies as higher class living wage jobs?
And how much for each one?
Who sets these wages and where is he or her?

You'll find the definitions in Obama's secret book that also describes what a "fair share" is.

 

[thanatos144]

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

My son works in the IT world. As a single employee he has leverage.
Guess why.
Workers that need a mob to belong to for leverage have to because they are in most instances in an industry that competes for low skilled workers with no other skills that are forced to work in a limited market.
In most instances because of lack of foresight.

No he doesn't.

Where have you been for the last 13 years.

Outsourcing IT jobs was meant to take away that leverage.

I work in the same field. When I started..all you had to say was "UNIX" and you could name your price.

Now?

Since his job wasn't outsourced I guess he doesn't work for one of Obama's masters.

 

[Bern80]

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

My son works in the IT world. As a single employee he has leverage.
Guess why.
Workers that need a mob to belong to for leverage have to because they are in most instances in an industry that competes for low skilled workers with no other skills that are forced to work in a limited market.
In most instances because of lack of foresight.

No he doesn't.

Where have you been for the last 13 years.

Outsourcing IT jobs was meant to take away that leverage.

I work in the same field. When I started..all you had to say was "UNIX" and you could name your price.

Now?

Just curious, when you started who promised you that would never change and that you woldn't have to adapt to changing technology and changing global labor market?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except the union does contribute something: it's your representative in the negotiations over pay and benefits. And if you don't want to join the union, you don't have to in any state. In states that are not right-to-work states, you simply have to a fee for that service. Just like I have to pay for valet when I'm at a nice hotel. Or pay the barber that cuts my hair.

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

Interesting, first you admit I am right, then you dismiss it because it is rare. The perfect illustration of why union supporters and I will never agree, you refuse to acknowledge the exceptional individual.

 

[Koios]

No it's not. While both are subjective as shit, in essence:

Merit = I think it has meaning to me;
Worth = I want it more than the cost in Cents/Dollars/Trade/Service to get it.

Does that help?

Wrong again;

Merit = level of contribution of the individual
worth/value = is the market factors that establish the prevailing wage for the skill set.

Try to stay with me ... and to make real easy for you, I'll use them in sentences:

I think what Robert Reich is saying has some merit.

Man these new comfort shoes are worth every penny I paid.

That help?

 

[Koios]

That's ridiculous. Of course merits matter, indivudually. If you're a dweeb you don't get in nor get the job. You flip burgers or something.

Not as much as it matters in a non-union environment. Unions protect those that choose to be the least productive. They can skate by doing the bare minimum because their union is going to negotiate a collective contract that applies to everyone. That's another problem with unions it discourages employees from being more productive. The run counter to a basic principle most of us are taught growing up. The harder you work in terms of productivity and/or honing and refining your skills, the more you'll be rewarded. But I guess that's wrong according to you. You must teach your children to make sure they get that has union representation so can they put forth as little effort as possible and still have someone negotiate a raise for them. It isn't hard to see what the real problem with the country is.

But reward, which is completely different, speaks to value, which is subjective as all get out. And thus collective bargaining was created to stave off those who would have had us emulate the Ruskies, and be commie. Seems we chose right.

Again observably false. If that were true all non-unon workers in the country would be making minimum wage and there would be far more unions.

So by having labor and management meet, within the context of a free market (no one there that doesn't choose to be) the thought was that the competing forces would create balance where actual value is the defacto result.

But the question is how is the value defined? Employers want the value to be based on one set of factors while the union wants it based on another. The union does NOT want it based on free market factors. The employer's factors are things like scarcity of the worker's skills, demand for the skill set, and prevailing wages for similar jobs in the area. The union's factor is basically just leverage due to the amount of people in the labor force it controls. They basically say 'I can control so much of the labor you need to operate that you're gonna give us what we want if you want any chance of staying in business.' It has NOTHING to do with the market value of a skill set.

And it seems it was, since wages paced productivity, right up till about 1980, when suddenly we got stupid and thought unions were outdated and no longer necessary, reducing steadily the percentage of our workforce in unions.

And whadaya know. Productivity still plodding upward, and now the envy of the world. But oops, wages going in the toilet. Folks no longer being paid their worth.

You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

 

[neomalthusian]

You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

You fail to comprehend what he said. He's pointing to the real reason(s) WHY it's not. You're playing dumb to his point because his IS more objective and accurate than yours.

 

[Koios]

You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

You fail to comprehend what he said. He's pointing to the real reason(s) WHY it's not. You're playing dumb to his point because his IS more objective and accurate than yours.

Hardly. Any moron could grasp it. But it's rife with unsubstantiated bullshit that merely exposes the depth of your ignorance.

Example:

"Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth."

Sure I can. I can argue they're half of what they're worth. Or you can say they're twice what they're worth. It's a subjective measure. Jesus. They teach English where you went to school?

As for what folks are paid: I haven't the foggiest what the worker is worth. All I know is what I have to pay, either driven by wage minimums or other forces, such as prevailing wages, or the least the candidate will except, which is driven by both need and perception.

Hell; I gotta assume they're worth more than I'm paying. If not, I'm losing money. So all my workers, in aggregate, need to generate more revenue than they're costing me.

And if I look out the fucking window, I'll see that on average, workers are doing more and getting less; wages are not tracking upwardly with productivity. They are worth than I'm having to pay, by the day. Halle fucking lujah. Workers are worth every fucking penny I'm paying, and then some (aka, not getting what they're worth.)

 

[Bern80]

That's ridiculous. Of course merits matter, indivudually. If you're a dweeb you don't get in nor get the job. You flip burgers or something.

Not as much as it matters in a non-union environment. Unions protect those that choose to be the least productive. They can skate by doing the bare minimum because their union is going to negotiate a collective contract that applies to everyone. That's another problem with unions it discourages employees from being more productive. The run counter to a basic principle most of us are taught growing up. The harder you work in terms of productivity and/or honing and refining your skills, the more you'll be rewarded. But I guess that's wrong according to you. You must teach your children to make sure they get that has union representation so can they put forth as little effort as possible and still have someone negotiate a raise for them. It isn't hard to see what the real problem with the country is.



Again observably false. If that were true all non-unon workers in the country would be making minimum wage and there would be far more unions.



But the question is how is the value defined? Employers want the value to be based on one set of factors while the union wants it based on another. The union does NOT want it based on free market factors. The employer's factors are things like scarcity of the worker's skills, demand for the skill set, and prevailing wages for similar jobs in the area. The union's factor is basically just leverage due to the amount of people in the labor force it controls. They basically say 'I can control so much of the labor you need to operate that you're gonna give us what we want if you want any chance of staying in business.' It has NOTHING to do with the market value of a skill set.

And it seems it was, since wages paced productivity, right up till about 1980, when suddenly we got stupid and thought unions were outdated and no longer necessary, reducing steadily the percentage of our workforce in unions.

And whadaya know. Productivity still plodding upward, and now the envy of the world. But oops, wages going in the toilet. Folks no longer being paid their worth.

You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

And you say I'm the one with comprehension problem? All you could come up with to comment on was one the one sentence you could misconstrue? Yet another intellectually dishonest lib folks. Join the crowd.

What I meant by you not being objective is in incorrectly identifying the reason what you say happened, happened. No where did argue that it didn't happen. I'm stating you're wrong about why it happened. Clear?

Now go back and see if you can add a little substance this time.

 

[Koios]

Not as much as it matters in a non-union environment. Unions protect those that choose to be the least productive. They can skate by doing the bare minimum because their union is going to negotiate a collective contract that applies to everyone. That's another problem with unions it discourages employees from being more productive. The run counter to a basic principle most of us are taught growing up. The harder you work in terms of productivity and/or honing and refining your skills, the more you'll be rewarded. But I guess that's wrong according to you. You must teach your children to make sure they get that has union representation so can they put forth as little effort as possible and still have someone negotiate a raise for them. It isn't hard to see what the real problem with the country is.



Again observably false. If that were true all non-unon workers in the country would be making minimum wage and there would be far more unions.



But the question is how is the value defined? Employers want the value to be based on one set of factors while the union wants it based on another. The union does NOT want it based on free market factors. The employer's factors are things like scarcity of the worker's skills, demand for the skill set, and prevailing wages for similar jobs in the area. The union's factor is basically just leverage due to the amount of people in the labor force it controls. They basically say 'I can control so much of the labor you need to operate that you're gonna give us what we want if you want any chance of staying in business.' It has NOTHING to do with the market value of a skill set.



You're not being objective. Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth. They went down simply because labor doesn't have the leverage it once had. What you're finding out is that union cost of labor back in your good 'ol days was artificially inflated.

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

And you say I'm the one with comprehension problem? All you could come up with to comment on was one the one sentence you could misconstrue? Yet another intellectually dishonest lib folks. Join the crowd.

What I meant by you not being objective is in incorrectly identifying the reason what you say happened, happened. No where did argue that it didn't happen. I'm stating you're wrong about why it happened. Clear?

Now go back and see if you can add a little substance this time.

No. But now that you mention it, yeah, that too.

(Note amount of irony in the question, since it queries something I didn't say, and talks about "comprehesion.")

I'm fucking rolling.

 

[MikeK]

There should be a right to work for less money. Employment should be between the employer and the employee. If someone is willing to work for less money than someone else, they should have the right to do it.

Even though it serves the interest of exploitative employers in promoting miserable, abusive working conditions and minimal wages? Because, as recent history readily attests, that is what the so-called "right to work" circumstance does.

"Right-To-Work" inevitably will destroy what we presently know to be the American Middle Class, which came into being as the direct result of the union movement and the standards that arose from it.

 

[Bern80]

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

You fail to comprehend what he said. He's pointing to the real reason(s) WHY it's not. You're playing dumb to his point because his IS more objective and accurate than yours.

Hardly. Any moron could grasp it. But it's rife with unsubstantiated bullshit that merely exposes the depth of your ignorance.

Example:

"Of course wages went down, but you can't argue that it's because people are no longer being paid what their worth."

Sure I can. I can argue they're half of what they're worth. Or you can say they're twice what they're worth. It's a subjective measure. Jesus. They teach English where you went to school?

As for what folks are paid: I haven't the foggiest what the worker is worth. All I know is what I have to pay, either driven by wage minimums or other forces, such as prevailing wages, or the least the candidate will except, which is driven by both need and perception.

Hell; I gotta assume they're worth more than I'm paying. If not, I'm losing money. So all my workers, in aggregate, need to generate more revenue than they're costing me.

And if I look out the fucking window, I'll see that on average, workers are doing more and getting less; wages are not tracking upwardly with productivity. They are worth than I'm having to pay, by the day. Halle fucking lujah. Workers are worth every fucking penny I'm paying, and then some (aka, not getting what they're worth.)

Again you're not taking a very objective look at this. It seems logical to you (and to me) that employers will tend to undervalue labor, right? That's only natural that a business trying to be successfull is going to keep its expenses down as best it can, including labor expenses. So why is it not also logical that employees over value labor? The true value of labor is somewhere between the employers under value and employees over value. In short, the definition of a fair labor wage is NOT when the laborer gets exactly what they want, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Bern80]

Really? You think wages not pacing productivity is subjective?

If so, you're clueless.

And you say I'm the one with comprehension problem? All you could come up with to comment on was one the one sentence you could misconstrue? Yet another intellectually dishonest lib folks. Join the crowd.

What I meant by you not being objective is in incorrectly identifying the reason what you say happened, happened. No where did argue that it didn't happen. I'm stating you're wrong about why it happened. Clear?

Now go back and see if you can add a little substance this time.

No. But now that you mention it, yeah, that too.

(Note amount of irony in the question, since it queries something I didn't say, and talks about "comprehesion.")

I'm fucking rolling.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Bern80]

There should be a right to work for less money. Employment should be between the employer and the employee. If someone is willing to work for less money than someone else, they should have the right to do it.

Even though it serves the interest of exploitative employers in promoting miserable, abusive working conditions and minimal wages? Because, as recent history readily attests, that is what the so-called "right to work" circumstance does.

"Right-To-Work" inevitably will destroy what we presently know to be the American Middle Class, which came into being as the direct result of the union movement and the standards that arose from it.

If that were true there would be no non-union middle class. Try again.

 

[Koios]

And you say I'm the one with comprehension problem? All you could come up with to comment on was one the one sentence you could misconstrue? Yet another intellectually dishonest lib folks. Join the crowd.

What I meant by you not being objective is in incorrectly identifying the reason what you say happened, happened. No where did argue that it didn't happen. I'm stating you're wrong about why it happened. Clear?

Now go back and see if you can add a little substance this time.

No. But now that you mention it, yeah, that too.

(Note amount of irony in the question, since it queries something I didn't say, and talks about "comprehesion.")

I'm fucking rolling.

Thanks for proving my point.

Ditto.

 

[Polk]

The problem is the union does not represent the individual worker, it represents the collective bargaining power of all the workers. There are cases where an individual worker might be able to negotiate a better contract for himself based on the fact that he is able to offer the employer something no one else can. Unions assume that everyone is equal in skill and abilities, and set out to defend sub par workers because this helps swell the ranks of people that pay into their coffers. Unions have morphed from protecting average workers from being exploited to protecting bad workers from being fired.

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

Interesting, first you admit I am right, then you dismiss it because it is rare. The perfect illustration of why union supporters and I will never agree, you refuse to acknowledge the exceptional individual.

You realize that the world isn't governed by theory, right? That's the problem with a lot of the "solutions" from the right. They're all based on this abstract model of how society should work than taking it as it actually is.

I absolutely refuse to "acknowledge the exceptional individual" because you state it as a universal truth. The reality is that most people don't have exceptional skills. They're just interchangeable cogs in machine. Even if some of them are slightly less productive, the trade-off is worthwhile if they'll work for less money. And that's true even in areas of the economy we'd think of as having highly specialized skill sets.

 

[Bern80]

No. But now that you mention it, yeah, that too.

(Note amount of irony in the question, since it queries something I didn't say, and talks about "comprehesion.")

I'm fucking rolling.

Thanks for proving my point.

Ditto.

Dude, it wasn't just me that noted that your reply totally missed my point and instead of mustering some intellectually integrity, admitting it and actually responding to what I said you'd rather nit pick on stuff lick this. THAT was the point. That instead of coming up with a reasoned counter argument to what I said you would rather devolve to this. On the other hand there is nothing I have said or done that could remotely be construed as proving any point of yours.

 

[Bern80]

That make be true in theory, but it's very unlikely in practice. Even more so when you consider that a single employee has no leverage.

Interesting, first you admit I am right, then you dismiss it because it is rare. The perfect illustration of why union supporters and I will never agree, you refuse to acknowledge the exceptional individual.

You realize that the world isn't governed by theory, right? That's the problem with a lot of the "solutions" from the right. They're all based on this abstract model of how society should work than taking it as it actually is.

I absolutely refuse to "acknowledge the exceptional individual" because you state it as a universal truth. The reality is that most people don't have exceptional skills. They're just interchangeable cogs in machine. Even if some of them are slightly less productive, the trade-off is worthwhile if they'll work for less money. And that's true even in areas of the economy we'd think of as having highly specialized skill sets.

Pretty sure he isn't stating it as a universal truth. That would be an oxymoron.