-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Labor Unions - Do we need them anymore?
- Thread starter Motokid
- Start date
novella
Active Member
Motokid said:
I've gotta laugh at this. I hate Wal-Mart. I hate being in the store, I hate the parking lot, I hate the merchandise, I hate the corporate philosophy, I hate their business practices. I went in there to buy my brother a bicycle and had to leave, it just made me feel so awful. I felt green around the gills just being in there with all those huge things and huge people and megasize everything. I really wish they would go out of business. The world would be a lot more civilized without Wal-Mart and its ilk.
novella
Active Member
Robert said:
Nobody is talking about 'large salaries' here. I'm referring to a living wage, i.e., one that can pay for rent, food, and health care.
Isn't this a little harsh and unrealistic? What if a person is not smart, has no opportunity to go to college, has circumstances (like caring for others at home) that don't allow for these choices?
History will judge us not by how well those with the most money were able to live but by how we treated the less fortunate among us. It's barbaric to say 'well, that person didn't go to college, isn't smart, and didn't choose the right career, so they deserve to live in a shelter and eat cat food when they are old. It just proves how dumb and lazy they always were." Is that the idea?
Robert
Active Member
novella said:
It's so sad to see so much hate.
I like Walmart. I like the fact that I save so much of my hard earned money when I shop there. I like the fact that they provide entry level jobs to so many that need them. I like the fact that they're RV friendly. I like the fact that they open additional cash registers so quickly when lines begin to get long.
There is so much to like about Walmart.
Motokid
New Member
Since you brought "living wage" up again novella I will repeat a question I asked earlier, but must have gotten buried in all the posting...
"I understand the "living wage" issue verses the "minimum wage" issue.....I do..but exactly how much are "you" willing to pay for things? Who, or which job should pay how much and offer what benefits?
What's the living wage for a 16 year old that works part time in the Pet Store I get my dog food from? What's the living wage for the 60ish year old lady in Dunkin Donuts who gives me my Friday morning coffee? What's the living wage for the 28 year old single mother of 2 who works on the manufacturing floor in the plant I work in? What's the living wage of the 53 year old single mother of 4 doing that same job as the 28 year old?
If my coffee cost jumps from $1.69 to $3.00 I stop buying it unless my income follows the same percentage increase.
A Honda Civic goes from costing $18,000 to costing $30,000.
A McDonalds dinner for 4 goes from costing $12.00 to costing $25.00....
If you drastically raise the price of the lowest paying jobs in the country, and you force the additional benefits onto the employeers, you'll either close many places down, or the cost of the goods produced will rise drastically. Which means everybody else will have to get raise to match and then nothing will really change except the poverty level number will rise drastically."
This was all in post #38 I believe.....
"I understand the "living wage" issue verses the "minimum wage" issue.....I do..but exactly how much are "you" willing to pay for things? Who, or which job should pay how much and offer what benefits?
What's the living wage for a 16 year old that works part time in the Pet Store I get my dog food from? What's the living wage for the 60ish year old lady in Dunkin Donuts who gives me my Friday morning coffee? What's the living wage for the 28 year old single mother of 2 who works on the manufacturing floor in the plant I work in? What's the living wage of the 53 year old single mother of 4 doing that same job as the 28 year old?
If my coffee cost jumps from $1.69 to $3.00 I stop buying it unless my income follows the same percentage increase.
A Honda Civic goes from costing $18,000 to costing $30,000.
A McDonalds dinner for 4 goes from costing $12.00 to costing $25.00....
If you drastically raise the price of the lowest paying jobs in the country, and you force the additional benefits onto the employeers, you'll either close many places down, or the cost of the goods produced will rise drastically. Which means everybody else will have to get raise to match and then nothing will really change except the poverty level number will rise drastically."
This was all in post #38 I believe.....
Shade
New Member
I agree with lindaj (or should I say with everyone except Moto and Robert 
) - employers, company owners and shareholders are in it for themselves; so the employees should be also. The measure of a society is how it treats its weaker members, and unions help balance up the weakness of employee as against employer.
Isn't this the point? Unions tend to get the workers higher pay? Therefore they are a good thing and are needed?
It's probably because I'm from the UK that I think it's extraordinary - but interesting - that this topic has even been raised. It probably shows how much the American political discourse has moved to the right. Britain is probably not far behind, but not quite there yet, thankfully.
) - employers, company owners and shareholders are in it for themselves; so the employees should be also. The measure of a society is how it treats its weaker members, and unions help balance up the weakness of employee as against employer.Motokid said:
Isn't this the point? Unions tend to get the workers higher pay? Therefore they are a good thing and are needed?
It's probably because I'm from the UK that I think it's extraordinary - but interesting - that this topic has even been raised. It probably shows how much the American political discourse has moved to the right. Britain is probably not far behind, but not quite there yet, thankfully.
Jemima Aslana
New Member
Considering that in Denmark we have at least 4 different unions covering unskilled labourers. So yeah, there are unions for those getting the minimum wages, here there are unions for everyone - as it should be.
As far as I recall the Danish minimum wage is considerably higher than the US, perhaps because of bigger union influence, though it could also be our socialistically based society.
As far as I recall the Danish minimum wage is considerably higher than the US, perhaps because of bigger union influence, though it could also be our socialistically based society.
Robert
Active Member
novella said:
You pick on Walmart a lot, but they actually have a pretty decent package. The pay a decent wage, they offer healthcare, educational benefits, paid vacation and holidays, flexible work hours and a 401k. Not bad.
Novella, it sounds to me like you see unions as a way of achieving socialism. I hope you never see it in this country.
I"m not going to address people with below average intelligence, that’s for a different thread. Anybody in this country can get an education and improve their value in the job market. It’s not that hard. Most people don’t do better because they’re to busy making excuses. I think the work for it is lazy. Go ahead and disagree, I know you’re going to. But I know many people that got their degree while working full time, including single mothers.
Robert on what evidence do you base this belief? PLEASE show me a wider field of research than your father/cousin/brother/great auntie Jeanie!! I suggest you get your nose out of the gutter press, the most likely place for you to find this kind of opinion. Look at it from another point of view...
If people took a cut in their wages, do you think that would stop an employer (look at Nike again) who decided to move to a country where labour is much cheaper? Until the 80s/90s manufacturing and skilled manual jobs were in the west. Today, as someone suggested earlier, we focus on eg finance,banking call centres. These jobs are ALREADY moving to countries like India. I know that I couldn't live on the average Indian wage, could you? Companies spend more on advertising than they do on labour costs. I made that point earlier, maybe not clear enough. If a company wants to move, they will give any old excuse. The oldest and the best of course, is the one about wages being too high.
More generally, on the question of whether or not unions are needed...
The nature of trade union organisations:
Trade unions are as strong or as weak as their membership.
Trade unions do not EMPLOY workers, by and large, they represent them in conflict with employers.
Trade unions represent workers, eg in discussions about pensions. If a worker is getting a crap pension deal, that worker has the right to argue for change. He or she has the right to argue at various levels, workplace, shop stewards' commitees, branch level, national level etc... The worker may or may not choose to take up that argument. If he or she takes up the argument and fails to win it, then he/she follows the decision of the majority. If he/she does nothing about it, then how do they expect change.
This is a fairly sane and rational process. You recognise it maybe? Yes, of course, it's called democracy. Why do you have a problem with whether we need them or not?
If people took a cut in their wages, do you think that would stop an employer (look at Nike again) who decided to move to a country where labour is much cheaper? Until the 80s/90s manufacturing and skilled manual jobs were in the west. Today, as someone suggested earlier, we focus on eg finance,banking call centres. These jobs are ALREADY moving to countries like India. I know that I couldn't live on the average Indian wage, could you? Companies spend more on advertising than they do on labour costs. I made that point earlier, maybe not clear enough. If a company wants to move, they will give any old excuse. The oldest and the best of course, is the one about wages being too high.
More generally, on the question of whether or not unions are needed...
The nature of trade union organisations:
Trade unions are as strong or as weak as their membership.
Trade unions do not EMPLOY workers, by and large, they represent them in conflict with employers.
Trade unions represent workers, eg in discussions about pensions. If a worker is getting a crap pension deal, that worker has the right to argue for change. He or she has the right to argue at various levels, workplace, shop stewards' commitees, branch level, national level etc... The worker may or may not choose to take up that argument. If he or she takes up the argument and fails to win it, then he/she follows the decision of the majority. If he/she does nothing about it, then how do they expect change.
This is a fairly sane and rational process. You recognise it maybe? Yes, of course, it's called democracy. Why do you have a problem with whether we need them or not?
Robert said:
You see, Robert! That is your big mistake. You personalise it! Also, who decides when costs HAVE to be cut? When that decision is made, who decides WHAT has to be cut?
Did Nike make US workers redundant simply so they could afford to pay Tiger massive fees for advertising? Or did they do it despite the costs to American workers and their families. What costs are you talking about here? Redundancy means houses repossessed etc etc what costs do employers consider??
Just because it happens?? Just because it happens, doesn't mean it has to go on happening. That is the point of having unions.
Did Nike make US workers redundant simply so they could afford to pay Tiger massive fees for advertising? Or did they do it despite the costs to American workers and their families. What costs are you talking about here? Redundancy means houses repossessed etc etc what costs do employers consider??
Just because it happens?? Just because it happens, doesn't mean it has to go on happening. That is the point of having unions.
Robert said:
Gem
kickbox
Ok i'm nervously going to add my two cents worth...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4168084.stm
The above leads to a story about a company called Gate Gourmet, they basically provide the meals for airlines, and in particular for British Airways. I won't go into details as the link pretty much explains the situation, but basically Gate Gourmet sacked 600 staff in a working practices row, which led to all sorts of strikes and delays at heathrow airport.
A family friend of ours was one of those 600. He joined the picketing, as he felt that he had to support his colleagues. He told me that the union had been helpful because they had given realistic advice, informing the workers where they should start looking for new work, and what help/benefits were available to them. The unions most important role was to ensure that the staff got a reasonable redundancy payout.
He was quite objective, in the sense that he told us he could understand why
the company had had to cut the jobs - they were performing poor and had lost too many contracts, some of the staff were lazy and the work was sloppy. From what I hear, and i don't mean just this one guy, the company were at fault, if your staff are lazy and the quality of work is sloppy then to me that is bad management practices, and poor quality control.
Ok i'm going off on a different tangent so i'll stop by saying that there is still a need for trade unions - only i believe that their roles are changing - the needs of workers in the past i.e. miners etc were different to the needs of todays workers. We need unions, perhaps just not in the traditional sense.
Ok i'm going to go hide behind a big rock now so moto won't find me
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4168084.stm
The above leads to a story about a company called Gate Gourmet, they basically provide the meals for airlines, and in particular for British Airways. I won't go into details as the link pretty much explains the situation, but basically Gate Gourmet sacked 600 staff in a working practices row, which led to all sorts of strikes and delays at heathrow airport.
A family friend of ours was one of those 600. He joined the picketing, as he felt that he had to support his colleagues. He told me that the union had been helpful because they had given realistic advice, informing the workers where they should start looking for new work, and what help/benefits were available to them. The unions most important role was to ensure that the staff got a reasonable redundancy payout.
He was quite objective, in the sense that he told us he could understand why
the company had had to cut the jobs - they were performing poor and had lost too many contracts, some of the staff were lazy and the work was sloppy. From what I hear, and i don't mean just this one guy, the company were at fault, if your staff are lazy and the quality of work is sloppy then to me that is bad management practices, and poor quality control.
Ok i'm going off on a different tangent so i'll stop by saying that there is still a need for trade unions - only i believe that their roles are changing - the needs of workers in the past i.e. miners etc were different to the needs of todays workers. We need unions, perhaps just not in the traditional sense.
Ok i'm going to go hide behind a big rock now so moto won't find me
Motokid
New Member
I really can't be sure if robert is serious or not...but it appears that aside from novella the bulk of the people advocating Unions are from outside the United States....which to me means that we don't understand how unions play into your countries, and you probably don't understand how they play into ours.
Again, novella pointed out the 1/5 is in a Union in USA....which means that 4 in every 5 people are not. There are many of those 4 that make good wages and good benfits and have compensation for education and other things working in their favor. That's 80 out of 100 people who don't work for unions. that's a large portion of America.
Where Robert and I stand (which is really the only point we can discuss/argue from) is from experience.
Of coarse employees need protection from certain things, there's lawyers for many of those things, and laws too....but companies are in business to make money. They are in business to make profits. Constantly blaiming the state of the American worker on the greed of the business owner is not a fair thing to do. A business owner takes huge risks, makes difficult and life changing decisions, and bears the responcibility of all the final outcomes....failure and fortune. They deserve to reap the biggest rewards because they have the most to lose. they take the biggest risks, so they deserve the biggest rewards. American consumers demand high quality at the lowest possible prices...so you end up with Wal-marts and places like that. The only way to offer goods at lowest prices it to cut back on salaries and benefits or they will lose thier customers. Those customers are the very people who need the lowest possible costing goods and services.
It's a vicious circle.
You can not increase wages for workers, and increase benefits, and gaurentee anything without having to pass those costs on to the consumers. The consumers then revolt by buying the competitions goods, or doing without. Either way the company has to walk a very fine line between offering goods at competitive prices, and offering employees adequate wage and benefit packages.
There is not a simple answer to this question. From the viewpoint of the employee you want the highest wage available. From the viewpoint of the owner you have to offer goods at fair market value and still generate profit.
I think those of you who blindly state that business owners are all greedy crooks and thieves, who thrive on cheating their employees out of being able to live a comfortable life, are looking at this question from only one side of the arguement. I have spent years trying to figure out how to start my own business. The two largest hurdles I can never seem to get over are insurance costs, and the costs of employees. Everytime I figure those costs into the equation I end up with a product price that just seems far and away too expensive for people to want to pay.
I hope Robert is kidding around....and I wish there were a few more American's contributing to this thread.....
Again, novella pointed out the 1/5 is in a Union in USA....which means that 4 in every 5 people are not. There are many of those 4 that make good wages and good benfits and have compensation for education and other things working in their favor. That's 80 out of 100 people who don't work for unions. that's a large portion of America.
Where Robert and I stand (which is really the only point we can discuss/argue from) is from experience.
Of coarse employees need protection from certain things, there's lawyers for many of those things, and laws too....but companies are in business to make money. They are in business to make profits. Constantly blaiming the state of the American worker on the greed of the business owner is not a fair thing to do. A business owner takes huge risks, makes difficult and life changing decisions, and bears the responcibility of all the final outcomes....failure and fortune. They deserve to reap the biggest rewards because they have the most to lose. they take the biggest risks, so they deserve the biggest rewards. American consumers demand high quality at the lowest possible prices...so you end up with Wal-marts and places like that. The only way to offer goods at lowest prices it to cut back on salaries and benefits or they will lose thier customers. Those customers are the very people who need the lowest possible costing goods and services.
It's a vicious circle.
You can not increase wages for workers, and increase benefits, and gaurentee anything without having to pass those costs on to the consumers. The consumers then revolt by buying the competitions goods, or doing without. Either way the company has to walk a very fine line between offering goods at competitive prices, and offering employees adequate wage and benefit packages.
There is not a simple answer to this question. From the viewpoint of the employee you want the highest wage available. From the viewpoint of the owner you have to offer goods at fair market value and still generate profit.
I think those of you who blindly state that business owners are all greedy crooks and thieves, who thrive on cheating their employees out of being able to live a comfortable life, are looking at this question from only one side of the arguement. I have spent years trying to figure out how to start my own business. The two largest hurdles I can never seem to get over are insurance costs, and the costs of employees. Everytime I figure those costs into the equation I end up with a product price that just seems far and away too expensive for people to want to pay.
I hope Robert is kidding around....and I wish there were a few more American's contributing to this thread.....