The Right to Work for less money

[Bern80]

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

Because that is what would happen if wages and benefits were negotiated up for public sector employees. The wages of public sector employees come from tax payers, not what they produce, either taxes must go up to cover the increase or, as government spending usuall goes, it will be IOU'd to the next generation.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

Because that is what would happen if wages and benefits were negotiated up for public sector employees. The wages of public sector employees come from tax payers, not what they produce, either taxes must go up to cover the increase or, as government spending usuall goes, it will be IOU'd to the next generation.

You're essentially saying that free enterprise is too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest, and need government to tell labor that there are rights they can't ask for.

That's moronic.

 

[Michael.Paul]

if wages were an issue, if forces that lead to declining wages were truly a concern we would have tackled illegal immigration. alas it is not and this is just another straw man.

Everytime someone jumps in to tackle the demand for illegals working here, the right wing shoots them down. Look at how Tyson became the poster child of the right, when their illegal meat cutters were sent home.

in general i am not assigning blame to the left or right both are complicit. i am looking at solutions. depressing wages due to illegal immigration is more of a drag than right to work laws.

 

[Koios]

What is wrong is the government allowing government workers to unionize.The folks that pay the freight, the taxpayers, do not get a seat at the negotiating table.

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

They aren't paid the same way however. Their wages do not come from revenues generated by what they produce. There wages come from tax payers which is why they shouldn't be allowed to unionize.

Yes; they are. Either in a check or direct deposit, with payroll and FIT withholding taken out.

Samo-samo.

Also why they have jobs is the same: someone or group has an enterprise which needs workers to meet its objective.

 

[Bern80]

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

Because that is what would happen if wages and benefits were negotiated up for public sector employees. The wages of public sector employees come from tax payers, not what they produce, either taxes must go up to cover the increase or, as government spending usuall goes, it will be IOU'd to the next generation.

You're essentially saying that free enterprise is too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest, and need government to tell labor that there are rights they can't ask for.

That's moronic.

No, I'm not. In unions wages are collectively bargained, as in not based on individual merit. Think about it for a second. Unions don't negotiate wages up because somehow every single one of their members put forth the extra effort that would warrent a pay increase. They negotiate for better compensation because the existence of a union would be pointless if they didn't and union reps would be out of their sleazy jobs. In other words union members get increases in pay without having to increase their productivity.

Public sector employERS aren't free enterprise. They're state enterprise, but it isnt' that they're too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest. It's that they have no incentive to because their pay doesn't come from what they produce either. It's not their money one the line footing the bill for the pay increase, it's yours and mine. That's why public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize because neither side has the ability to negotiate in good faith. The employer has none of their own skin in the game so they have no incentive to keep costs down as evidenced by the ridiculous pensions so many state employees have. And the employees have no incentive to do what the rest of us have to do to earn more money because their earning aren't tied to what they produce.

Now that isn't to say I don't think state employees should ever get pay increases. I just think it should be on individual merit and the case for more pay ought to be agreed upon by those footing the bill, the taxpayers either via a direct vote, or by a board representing them.

 

[Bern80]

Nothing. They're workers, like all workers, who have job requirements, and pay the same taxes we all do on their income. They are not property of the state, as Righties seem to think.

They aren't paid the same way however. Their wages do not come from revenues generated by what they produce. There wages come from tax payers which is why they shouldn't be allowed to unionize.

Yes; they are. Either in a check or direct deposit, with payroll and FIT withholding taken out.

Samo-samo.

Also why they have jobs is the same: someone or group has an enterprise which needs workers to meet its objective.

Now you're just being intellectually obtuse. You know what I mean, but if needed spelled out for you see above post.

 

[Koios]

Because that is what would happen if wages and benefits were negotiated up for public sector employees. The wages of public sector employees come from tax payers, not what they produce, either taxes must go up to cover the increase or, as government spending usuall goes, it will be IOU'd to the next generation.

You're essentially saying that free enterprise is too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest, and need government to tell labor that there are rights they can't ask for.

That's moronic.

No, I'm not. In unions wages are collectively bargained, as in not based on individual merit. Think about it for a second. Unions don't negotiate wages up because somehow every single one of their members put forth the extra effort that would warrent a pay increase. They negotiate for better compensation because the existence of a union would be pointless if they didn't and union reps would be out of their sleazy jobs. In other words union members get increases in pay without having to increase their productivity.

Public sector employERS aren't free enterprise. They're state enterprise, but it isnt' that they're too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest. It's that they have no incentive to because their pay doesn't come from what they produce either. It's not their money one the line footing the bill for the pay increase, it's yours and mine. That's why public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize because neither side has the ability to negotiate in good faith. The employer has none of their own skin in the game so they have no incentive to keep costs down as evidenced by the ridiculous pensions so many state employees have. And the employees have no incentive to do what the rest of us have to do to earn more money because their earning aren't tied to what they produce.

Now that isn't to say I don't think state employees should ever get pay increases. I just think it should be on individual merit and the case for more pay ought to be agreed upon by those footing the bill, the taxpayers either via a direct vote, or by a board representing them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[kwc57]

That means you oppose laws that give unions control over who can be hired at a shop, good to know.

You lying little piece of shit. I made clear that I give the right to the ability of employers and employees to make that decision.

It's little corporate scumbags like you that want to see laws passed that says such a contractual agreeement should be illegal. Why do you hate the rights of parties to enter a normally legal contract, unless you want more fascism?

The only way I led is if you do not oppose laws that give unions say in who gets hired. I guess your true position slipped out.

Dick lick's true position is on his knees.

 

[kwc57]

You're essentially saying that free enterprise is too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest, and need government to tell labor that there are rights they can't ask for.

That's moronic.

No, I'm not. In unions wages are collectively bargained, as in not based on individual merit. Think about it for a second. Unions don't negotiate wages up because somehow every single one of their members put forth the extra effort that would warrent a pay increase. They negotiate for better compensation because the existence of a union would be pointless if they didn't and union reps would be out of their sleazy jobs. In other words union members get increases in pay without having to increase their productivity.

Public sector employERS aren't free enterprise. They're state enterprise, but it isnt' that they're too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest. It's that they have no incentive to because their pay doesn't come from what they produce either. It's not their money one the line footing the bill for the pay increase, it's yours and mine. That's why public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize because neither side has the ability to negotiate in good faith. The employer has none of their own skin in the game so they have no incentive to keep costs down as evidenced by the ridiculous pensions so many state employees have. And the employees have no incentive to do what the rest of us have to do to earn more money because their earning aren't tied to what they produce.

Now that isn't to say I don't think state employees should ever get pay increases. I just think it should be on individual merit and the case for more pay ought to be agreed upon by those footing the bill, the taxpayers either via a direct vote, or by a board representing them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Worth is based on merit.

 

[Dick Tuck]

if wages were an issue, if forces that lead to declining wages were truly a concern we would have tackled illegal immigration. alas it is not and this is just another straw man.

Everytime someone jumps in to tackle the demand for illegals working here, the right wing shoots them down. Look at how Tyson became the poster child of the right, when their illegal meat cutters were sent home.

in general i am not assigning blame to the left or right both are complicit. i am looking at solutions. depressing wages due to illegal immigration is more of a drag than right to work laws.

The solution seems simple enough to me. Deport any employer who doesn't do due dilligence to make sure his employees are documented, and confiscate their property. The illegal immigration problem would go away in a flash. I prefer that over targeting people who have an accent, and demanding they carry papers that aren't required of other citizens.

It's not going to happen though. The corporate powers won't let it, and as long as we keep on ceding power from the individual to those interests, it's only going to be a bigger joke.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You lying little piece of shit. I made clear that I give the right to the ability of employers and employees to make that decision.

It's little corporate scumbags like you that want to see laws passed that says such a contractual agreeement should be illegal. Why do you hate the rights of parties to enter a normally legal contract, unless you want more fascism?

The only way I led is if you do not oppose laws that give unions say in who gets hired. I guess your true position slipped out.

Dick lick's true position is on his knees.

So you go prone to lick the shit crusted dingleberries out of your heros assholes? I'd check in with a diettician if I were you.

 

[Koios]

No, I'm not. In unions wages are collectively bargained, as in not based on individual merit. Think about it for a second. Unions don't negotiate wages up because somehow every single one of their members put forth the extra effort that would warrent a pay increase. They negotiate for better compensation because the existence of a union would be pointless if they didn't and union reps would be out of their sleazy jobs. In other words union members get increases in pay without having to increase their productivity.

Public sector employERS aren't free enterprise. They're state enterprise, but it isnt' that they're too stupid to negotiate contracts in their best interest. It's that they have no incentive to because their pay doesn't come from what they produce either. It's not their money one the line footing the bill for the pay increase, it's yours and mine. That's why public sector employees shouldn't be allowed to unionize because neither side has the ability to negotiate in good faith. The employer has none of their own skin in the game so they have no incentive to keep costs down as evidenced by the ridiculous pensions so many state employees have. And the employees have no incentive to do what the rest of us have to do to earn more money because their earning aren't tied to what they produce.

Now that isn't to say I don't think state employees should ever get pay increases. I just think it should be on individual merit and the case for more pay ought to be agreed upon by those footing the bill, the taxpayers either via a direct vote, or by a board representing them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Worth is based on merit.

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?

 

[boilermaker55]

Hell, then those individuals working in factories in China, Mexico , Vietnam, Cambodia etc, and other 3rd world countries should really being doing quite well. Working 16 hours a day, one break and live right on the factory grounds.
Damn, those union people sure have missed the boat to prosperity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Self-respect? I still don't know a single trade employee who would prefer to work without an advocate agent negotiating his labor agreement.

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

 

[kwc57]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Worth is based on merit.

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?

Does someone have to help you get dressed in the morning?

 

[Koios]

Self respect means sticking my children with the bill for my stupidity?

Since when?

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

Nothin magical about it. Unions just have more leverage in making the individual reward for a career of service way better than folks going it alone, and taking what the HR folks say they're worth.

No shit. Ask an office worker in a non union company what their pension is, and get a laugh. Then ask a retired union worker what theirs is like, on top of SS. Pretty stark difference in the answers you're likely to get.

 

[Koios]

Worth is based on merit.

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?

Does someone have to help you get dressed in the morning?

No. Nordstrom does. I need shit to pull on when gettin' out of the shower. Plus I'm a Seattle guy, and like the local companies in this land of far left retards: Starbucks, Microsoft, Amazon, Costco, Boeing, to name some small and struggling enterprises we dumb lefites **** up since we are so ignorant of business and shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did you come up with nonsense, brain fart, quantum leap, that not wanting laws to limit negotiated labor/management contracts would be sticking your children with the bill? Are you going to leave them the cost of season ticket football tickets?

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

Nothin magical about it. Unions just have more leverage in making the individual reward for a career of service way better than folks going it alone, and taking what the HR folks say they're worth.

No shit. Ask an office worker in a non union company what their pension is, and get a laugh. Then ask a retired union worker what theirs is like, on top of SS. Pretty stark difference in the answers you're likely to get.

It still has to be paid for, and putting that off on the next generation is selfish and greedy. Isn't that supposed to be what the Republicans do?

 

[Koios]

You seem to think that union contracts work by magic to fund public sector pensions. I disagree.

Nothin magical about it. Unions just have more leverage in making the individual reward for a career of service way better than folks going it alone, and taking what the HR folks say they're worth.

No shit. Ask an office worker in a non union company what their pension is, and get a laugh. Then ask a retired union worker what theirs is like, on top of SS. Pretty stark difference in the answers you're likely to get.

It still has to be paid for, and putting that off on the next generation is selfish and greedy. Isn't that supposed to be what the Republicans do?

Sure; I get that it has to be paid for. Not sure why union workers' kids are paying for it. Where's your thinking on that?

 

[MikeK]

The fight in Michigan wasn't over whether someone had to join a union or not. Michigan laws allowed employees to opt out of joining the union. But they were still charged union dues every month and the money went to the union. That's what the fight in Michigan was about. It was about depriving the unions of the money they were getting from non union employees. Ostensibly it was because non union members were getting the benefit of belonging to a union and should be paying dues, or the equivalent of dues.

Non union employees are free to negotiate their own employment terms, free of the unions and the unions don't want some workaholic undermining union employees by working harder and making more money.

Let's try this hypothesis:

The employees of a company were earning $7.50 an hour until they organized and formed (or brought in) a union, which achieved an increase to $15 an hour -- plus a lot of additional benefits like a 40 hour week, overtime pay, paid holidays, paid vacation, coffee breaks, etc. The union contract allowed the company to hire non-union workers who enjoyed the same benefits the union members had fought and sacrificed to achieve but the non-union workers are required to pay the same dues as active union members.

Based on the pre-union rate, a 40 hour week at $7.50 an hour would gross $300 (with no benefits). Based on the unionized rate a 40 hour week at $15 an hour grosses $600 -- with a lot of valuable benefits. But the union dues are $12 a week, which the non-union workers are complaining about!

Does that clarify the situation a bit? The scabs are paying the union $12 for getting them $300 more than they would be getting were it not for the union, not to mention a host of extremely valuable benefits.

These people walk into a $15 an hour job, or a $30 an hour job, and don't give a moment's thought about how that hourly rate, and all the benefits, came about! They think the employer is simply benevolent.