Do you support unions?

[Jarlaxle]

Ok so no unions. Then how do workers get ahead. And if your lesser thinking brain says "work hard" that simply is wrong...in every aspect. Want one to work harder pay them more. Otherwise status quo SHOULD be the rule. Econ 101.

Work on reading comprehension. Yours sucks rocks.

Always empty handed

Yes, the plebe usually is.

 

[jc456]

Yes, the plebe usually is.

You really are

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't claim I needed to be in a union full of deplorables, you did.


In other words, you're a high-school grad who went back years later and eked out a BA from some junior college because you couldn't get as job otherwise.

And so begins the degree measuring contest.

 

[jc456]

And so begins the degree measuring contest.

Can’t make it up. Union fks want jobs, but unwilling to fight for them by tarrifs to bring them back.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nope. Been retired for a long time. But low labor wages equal a country that is behind. Want people to work hard then pay them more. Want them to work less hard pay less. Wages AND effort are tied together.

Interesting that people like yourself, sealy, and others want everyone else belong to a union, yet by choice didn’t join one. I have worked a union job before and I would never work in a union again.

 

[Papageorgio]

Ok so no unions. Then how do workers get ahead. And if your lesser thinking brain says "work hard" that simply is wrong...in every aspect. Want one to work harder pay them more. Otherwise status quo SHOULD be the rule. Econ 101.

How did you get ahead?

 

[Rumpole]

how much were the dues?

BTW, I made 4.00 per hour non union shop

What state?. Maybe 3 dollars or so per paycheck, if I recall correctly. That was about 1% of pay, but I earned 3x the minimum.

 

[Rumpole]

Employers - big and small - will pay their employees whatever the market will bear, which is NOT as little as they will accept because then your employees will gain some experience and quit for another job.

Depends on the company. I've worked for conscientious employers, and exploitative employers.

And BTW, nobody holds a gun to your head and says you will work here and we'll pay you as little as possible,

What you don't understand is that not everyone has the luxury of quitting. some people have jobs in areas not so easy to find a comparable job, while, at the same time, they have mouths to feed. Please reread my comment on 'bargaining parity'.

in this country you can tell them to go to hell anytime you want to.

See above.

And then there's the staffing and training issue: if your business has a high turnover rate for your employees then you're spending a lot money to find, hire, and train people to do the job.

I'm 72, had a lot of jobs when I was young before I settled into a career that led to self employment (I owned a few costume jewelry concessions and later became a wedding photographer). You'd think what you are saying is obvious to some employers, but my experience is that it just isn't true. Some are conscientious, some are exploitative.

I think you'll find that for most businesses you actually save money in other ways by paying your people more than the going market rate.

I only know what I know from my own experience.

You do understand that higher labor costs will drive up the price of the product or service, right?

Depends on the industry and how big the increase is. In an industry where labor is about, say 17% and you pay a quarter raise (not great, but welcome in '73) this might result in having to charge only a little extra on the retail end and demand was hardly affected. It all depends. I've owned businesses, both products and services, and my experience tells me that retail pricing is based more on demand and less on costs. Sure costs are factored, but if demand is soft, and can't justify the cost, the product is price slashed sold at cost or at a lost to make way for another product more in demand. Costs DO NOT determine retail (as much as), DEMAND does insofar as products which stay on the shelves. If costs increase a little, and demand won't be softened by a slight increase, then costs affect pricing, but see, it depends on degree. What I'm trying to say is that demand has more impact on pricing than costs do. Prices are set by that price which yields the most profit, it might be X price, or X plus 1, where costs hasn't varied. Demand is impacting the price, not costs (or not as much). If costs rise, we will see if a slight price increase to recover our extra costs is doable, but if it slows demand reducing profit more, then we back off and accept the smaller profit. That profit sweet spot is determined much more by demand than costs.

That is the primary reason why foreign countries can make products and ship them over here and at a lower cost than the same domestic product. And don't try to tell me the domestic product or service is of better quality and therefore worth more, cuz it isn't.

Yeah, foreign competition is a problem where labor is much cheaper. Thing is, foreign labor is radically cheaper. on the retail end, depending on the industry, I might support tariffs. But I do not support tariffs on raw materials.

Federal law says that employees can unionize anywhere, but they cannot force people to join it or pay dues. It's not like the union has to represent every employee whether they are dues-paying members or not. They can decide not to support me and I can decide not to join their union. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Well, having been a member of a few unions, not many, but a few, this is my take on it:

The statement is generally correct in terms of federal labor laws in the United States. Employees have the right to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) regardless of whether they pay union dues or not. However, there are a few important points to consider:

First, while unions cannot force employees to join or pay dues, they are still required by law to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, including those who choose not to join or pay dues. This is because unions are legally obligated to represent all employees in the bargaining unit equally, whether or not they are union members.

Second, while unions cannot force employees to join or pay dues, they can negotiate contracts that require all employees in the bargaining unit to pay "fair share" fees. These fees are designed to cover the cost of collective bargaining and representation for all employees in the bargaining unit, regardless of whether they are union members or not. In some states, unions can also negotiate contracts that require employees to pay full union dues as a condition of employment.

Third, while employees have the right to decide whether or not to join a union, there may be benefits to joining, such as increased bargaining power, better wages and benefits, and greater job security. Non-union employees may not have access to these benefits, and may also be more vulnerable to employer retaliation for engaging in protected union activities.

And so, while employees have the right to decide whether or not to join a union and pay dues, it is important to understand the legal obligations of unions to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, and the potential benefits of union membership.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[initforme]

I did my time (40 years of working). Served my sentence. Sacrificed family stuff for the company. I hope my former emoyers folk are suffering and I owe them zero thanks for the job they provided. In fact they still owe me.

 

[jc456]

What state?. Maybe 3 dollars or so per paycheck, if I recall correctly. That was about 1% of pay, but I earned 3x the minimum.

When you got to lie.

 

[Markle]

What you don't understand is that not everyone has the luxury of quitting. some people have jobs in areas not so easy to find a comparable job, while, at the same time, they have mouths to feed. Please reread my comment on 'bargaining parity'.

All the result of decisions THEY made, not decisions by their employer.

 

[jc456]

All the result of decisions THEY made, not decisions by their employer.

Demofks never admit anything

 

[task0778]

Depends on the company. I've worked for conscientious employers, and exploitative employers.

These days there are not many exploitative employers, and their businesses fail a lot more often than otherwise. The woke crowd will be on your ass in a heartbeat.

What you don't understand is that not everyone has the luxury of quitting.

And whose fault is that? You're bitching about some people complaining about the hole they're in that they dug themselves.

I only know what I know from my own experience.

Wages and salaries are going up but people still don't want to work. Your experience and opinion has value, but let's not conflate that with the macroeconomy in general.

First, while unions cannot force employees to join or pay dues, they are still required by law to represent all employees in the bargaining unit

I do not believe that is true. Unions are NOT legally required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit. They do it anyway, but the last I checked they don't have to.

Third, while employees have the right to decide whether or not to join a union, there may be benefits to joining, such as increased bargaining power, better wages and benefits, and greater job security.

I dunno about job security, some unions have bargained themselves out of everybody's job in some places. The company relocated their operations at least in part somewhere else where the cost of labor was not as prohibitive.

And so, while employees have the right to decide whether or not to join a union and pay dues, it is important to understand the legal obligations of unions to represent all employees in the bargaining unit, and the potential benefits of union membership.

Potential drawbacks too. I.E., your business closes or relocates. Again, I do not believe that unions are legally obligated to represent every employee even if they are not a union member. IMHO, times have changed from what they were 50 to 100 years ago. We now have tons of laws and regulations concerning employee health and safety, and in some places minimum wage laws are in effect. Some companies are paying above the MW, because it is expensive and difficult nowadays to find good employees and keep them. So, it's not like that many employees are being screwed or exploited.

 

[initforme]

These days there are not many exploitative employers, and their businesses fail a lot more often than otherwise. The woke crowd will be on your ass in a heartbeat.




And whose fault is that? You're bitching about some people complaining about the hole they're in that they dug themselves.




Wages and salaries are going up but people still don't want to work. Your experience and opinion has value, but let's not conflate that with the macroeconomy in general.




I do not believe that is true. Unions are NOT legally required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit. They do it anyway, but the last I checked they don't have to.





I dunno about job security, some unions have bargained themselves out of everybody's job in some places. The company relocated their operations at least in part somewhere else where the cost of labor was not as prohibitive.





Potential drawbacks too. I.E., your business closes or relocates. Again, I do not believe that unions are legally obligated to represent every employee even if they are not a union member. IMHO, times have changed from what they were 50 to 100 years ago. We now have tons of laws and regulations concerning employee health and safety, and in some places minimum wage laws are in effect. Some companies are paying above the MW, because it is expensive and difficult nowadays to find good employees and keep them. So, it's not like that many employees are being screwed or exploited.

People don't want to work? That's very untrue. People are working harder than ever. Why make such a statement? Our workforce is stronger than ever.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Bullshit.

Across the nation, but particularly in states like Oklahoma and Arizona where educators have long been frustrated or deterred by a lack of classroom resources and extremely low pay, the teacher shortage has grown acute this year. Hundreds of thousands of students across the U.S. are being taught this year by unqualified or under-qualified instructors, estimates the national non-profit, nonpartisan Learning Policy Institute (LPI). The consequences for students, who strongly benefit from high-quality teachers, is likely to be enormous.

Back to School Without a Qualified Teacher | NEA

Putting under-trained teachers in classrooms only harms students and exacerbates teacher shortages across the country.

www.nea.org

AND


As schools across the South grapple with vacancies, many turn to those without teaching certificates or formal training to serve students.

Texas allowed about 1 in 5 new teachers to sidestep certification last school year. Alabama administrators, meanwhile, increasingly hire educators with emergency certifications, often in low-income and majority Black neighborhoods.

In Oklahoma, lawmakers expanded an “adjunct” program that enables schools to hire applicants without teacher training if they meet a local board’s qualifications. And then there’s Florida, where military veterans without a bachelor’s degree can teach for up to five years using temporary certificates.

These states provide a window into the patchwork approach across the South that allows those without traditional training to lead a classroom. Officials must determine if it’s better to hire these adults, even if they aren’t fully prepared, or let children end up in crowded classes or with substitutes.

Uncertified teachers filling holes in schools across the South

As schools across the South grapple with vacancies, many turn to those without teaching certificates or formal training to serve students.

www.dallasnews.com

I suspect the ratio of unqualified or underqualified teachers in private schools is somewhat lower than that in public schools. Why? Maybe it's cuz private schools don't have a teachers union to support them. and keep them employed.

That is a recent occurrence and is NOT justification for overcrowding good schools be cause it is the parent prerogative. In my Florida school system, vouchers and school choice were allowed for a short period of time. In that school choice system, students could attend any public school where there was a vacancy. The top two high schools had zero vacancies before the program started. We were already overcrowded and gained students from the north and western sides of the county. We were forced to build an annex of 8 classrooms at a cost of $7 million that was originally scheduled for classroom upgrades in the main building. We topped out at 3260 students when I was assistant principal. They finally built a new high school a few year after I left after planning one for 10 years. It was overcrowded year one.

The difference then was every teacher had a certification.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

People don't want to work? That's very untrue. People are working harder than ever. Why make such a statement? Our workforce is stronger than ever.

My wife worked for a major cable company. They would lose 200 or more people per year from her call center because the younger generation refused to show up for work too many times. They were summarily fired when that happened.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am dead-set against tariffs and other forms of protectionism, what you're really doing is taxing your own consumers to pay more for something.

So it doesn't prevent them from buying products produced domestically at a lower cost than the tariffed-applied products?

 

[initforme]

My wife worked for a major cable company. They would lose 200 or more people per year from her call center because the younger generation refused to show up for work too many times. They were summarily fired when that happened.

One example doesn't discount the greatest workforce by far in the world

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

One example doesn't discount the greatest workforce by far in the world

Her story is the same for all of my friends who work in similar occupations. This is far from the greatest workforce in the world or we would not have issues recruiting for the military either. At my last job, we recruited via internet and phone for the Army. Our workforce was well paid but had exceptionally high turnover, even when working from home during COVID,