There are only so many people that can stand out. And it turns out that ability is only one of the ways.
That’s the whole point. You get a few stars that get paid over the top money and the rest get crap. Capital likes the brass ring. It’s like the carrot and the mule. Just how many mules get the carrot even after busting their “ass”?
“I’m not going to buy insurance until I need it.”
Great strategy until you realize there will be no insurance unless everyone kicks in.
There a story, possibly apocryphal about CGI programmers writing the logic for an army based on a set of instructions for a soldier to maximize it’s own effectiveness. They fire it up and both armies run away.
It turns out that the best strategy for the individual based on the individual’s perception of things is very often NOT the best strategy for society.
Uh, there are plenty of laws on the books that don’t get enforced. It’s exactly this kind of regulation that conservatives will starve the funding for because it inhibits business.
Lawsuits? Oh yeah, most people have the funds to fight a company’s legal resources.
No. I’m seriously telling you that if we decided to divvy up all the income we had that would work really well… for one year. I’m seriously telling you that we wouldn’t have anywhere near that amount to divvy up next year. Do you disagree?
Do you realize that you are arguing AGAINST doing a good job? Which seems to be the theme of this thread: we need unions because some people can’t/won’t do a good job and need to convince everyone else not to do a good job to they don’t get fired.
No, I don’t realize that I’m arguing against doing a good job. I’m arguing that doing a good job doesn’t necessarily get rewarded. And finding another job has substantial costs, especially when you consider how many people get a new job via a social network.
We need unions because the “cream of the crop” gets rewarded on the basis of more than just ability and because management is being rewarded to make sure that most people are kept jumping for the brass ring regardless of the thin chances of actually getting it.
Look at the distribution of income by quintile over the last 30 years. Note that the bottom 3 quintiles (60% of the people) have reduced their income in real dollars over that time.
Rewarded how, are you suggesting people don’t get paid for their work? What sort of reward are you talking about?
And how do unions fit into this? How about instead of paying union dues people just put aside the same amount of money to use when they need to “find another job.”
So? What does that have to do with unions? Is it not possible people are less skilled?
Why are people “choosing” to work those jobs? Or are you suggesting that something is forcing them to work for a lower income? As a wise man once said: if they don’t like the terms of the contract, including the wages, they are free to refrain from signing the contract.
The reward I’m talking about is a close correlation between compensation and productivity. That’s the argument on the capital side. Work harder and smarter and you’ll be rewarded. Or move to a job where you will be.
The problem with this theory is that you’re moving up in a pyramid and there are only so many rungs to get to the next level reward. Even worse, some of the workers above you are greasing the rungs because that’s how they choose to “compete”.
I don’t think people are less skilled. I think the decline in the unions over the last 30 years parallels the decline in compensation for the bottom 60%.
We need the unions to push back against Capital and tell them that they should stop squeezing the worker for “productivity” and start doing their job and invest in training, new equipment and risk some of that capital in real innovation.
But it’s easier for a short sighted Capital to pay the 2nd quintile to crack the whip. It’s a small fraction of the return the top quintile gets, but the 2nd quintile is happy to get it.
You really should educate yourself before you start calling people liars. I used to work as a payroll clerk and HR specialist for an Ohio municipality, so I’m very well acquainted with pension plans of civil servants, including police and firemen. **Every single fireman & policeman **that I know either retired, or plans to retire in their 50s. In fact, they were contractually obligated to retire before the age of 60, the public not wanting old geezers protecting them.
Every *civil servant *that I know, including teachers, with one notable exception (my grandmother) retired, or plans to retire, in their 50s. Why? Because their pensions kick in fully after 25 to 30 years of service. Since most start work right after college, that puts them in their mid to late 50s when they retire. And when faced with the prospect of continuing to work or getting 70% of their salary for not working, most (surprise!) choose to quit working.
Now, many of them go on and get SECOND jobs so that they also eventually qualify for SS. But that’s beside the point.
If you don’t believe me, here are some links where you can browse the plans for yourself. Here’s the link for PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) for most government workers:
And here’s the one for Police & Firemen. I encourage you to enter made-up information that puts you at 55 with 30 years of service and see what kind of monthly benefit you get. (Hint: It’s 70% of your average salary).
No union in the military, but it works the same way for career officers, too (don’t the details for enlisted folks). Retire at 30 years with x% of salary. I can’t remember what “x” is, but it’s something like 75. Thirty years generally puts you in your early 50s.
Zeriel: I think you’re mostly correct. Certainly true of the military, but there is currently a “scandal” in the San Jose area about highly paid Firefighters (management level) who retire in their 50s with very nice benefits, then get hired back to the exact same job as consultants. Double dippers, they are called.
I understand that the double dipping actually saves the cities money since the consultant’s salary is less than a replacement’s full time salary would be, but the emotional reaction is had to ignore.
Yeah, double dipping bothers me on a gut level to the extent that I wouldn’t mind pensions being “capped” in such a way that if you retired and took other employment, you got paid enough to bring your total taxable wage income up to the pension amount.
Granted, I’d like this only when appropriately negotiated for new hires. My ongoing largest gripe with the whole situation with union pensions is…man, union or non-union, that’s the contract both sides signed. No one forced 'em.
It is always possible, to a degree. Even of all I have to do is show up and push a button. Showing up on time, keeping sick time to a minimum—or zero, showing initiative, doing more than is required of you, and having a generally good attitude. You do all those things, and deliver on them better than those around you, your job is safe.
Hmmm. Only if there were a law firm or two who might be willing to fight on someone’s behalf for, say, a third of what the successful lawsuit may generate. There are also entities like the ACLU that will swoop to the rescue if the violation is of a civil rights nature. There are others.
With no union, when a particular school has to cut costs, say 10%, the principal, who does have a lot of contact with the teachers, should be able to make the calls on a teacher-by-teacher basis. His, or her, estimation, with the input of parents, should apportion the cuts, or raises, accordingly.
All you need to have is the opportunity for unions to sprout. You don’t need the actual union. But this is going off course. While I’m not in favor of unions, as I said, I think it fine for people to form them. But their power is way out of whack. And anything that interferes with a person from earning their worth, or rewarding them for more than their worth, is a crime against man.
Sadly, although I would love it to be true, this is not the case. I’ve had three companies shot out from under me, and I know of cases where a hard worker was axed pretty much at the whim of someone who didn’t like them. You certainly improve your chances of remaining hired and advancing if you are a “good worker” along these lines, but it’s by no means a guarantee that you’ll be properly promoted or even retained for your efforts.