F#@% these union busters

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

I love the idea of a mutually agreed to wage. In the real world, the owner can pay you what he wants Without a minimum wage or absent a union, your input is weak. He has the power. If you don’t like it, he will hire someone else who will work for less.

Only as long as someone else is willing to work for less. If that’s the case, you aren’t worth as much as you think you are.

The key to the early success of McDonalds was to minimize every task to its cheapest possible solution. So instead of needing a highly skilled chef at $20/hour, you would hire easily replaceable teenagers for $2/ hour. The result was a restaurant chain that offered a low cost and consistent product consumers desired.

All that was based on Henry Ford who did the same thing with auto-manufacturing. Instead of having a bunch of highly skilled technicians building a car, break the task down into easily trainable components. The result were cars people could afford.

Now we’re doing it with doctors, who’s professional association drove up their wages. The result was the introduction of professionals like physician assistants, and nurse practitioners that are responsible for individual components of a doctor’s job.

These are the same forces that allow you to sell a product to the person willing to pay the most. Or would you like to put a cap on Ebay sales? Require some sort of need based assessment?

@gonzomax

As long as they can keep unemployment high, you are powerless. In case you have not noticed offshoring has created an educated and experience, desperate work force. It was not an accident. Wages will drop in America to meet the wages in 3rd world countries. We are going there rapidly.

Boo fucking hoo.

My grandmother collected Royal Doulton figurines. Eventually she got to a point where she was tired of them had my brother put some of them up on ebay. They initially thought each one was worth over $500. When he went to put the first one up for auction he realized thousands of other people had the same idea, it sold for about $200. The second one sold for less. He managed to get rid of a few, but each time the market got more and more saturated.

The union philosophy would be to decide the market is wrong, that the price of each doll should be $500, and that everyone trying to sell a doll should be bullied into agreeing with them (and paying them a montlhy fee).

Value is what people are willing to pay for something. If someone can do your job for less, you aren’t worth what you think you are. Either do your job better, or accept a lower salary.

Think back to 2001 when Apple released the first ipod; it held 5gigs and cost $400. If the ipod had a union, it would fight for a 5% wage increase, and a 5% productivity decrease, so a few years later we’d have to spend $500 for 4gigs. Instead, market forces meant 5gigs wasn’t worth $400. Now for less than $400 you can get 64gigs, with full colour touch screen and wifi. Meanwhile a 4gig mp3 player costs $40. Should we have an organization that forces people to keep paying $400 for 5gigs?

I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but not everyone gets to make the same amount of money. Some people have skills that other people are willing to pay for. If you want to be paid more, get some skills. Driving the same bus route for 40 years doesn’t count.

[emacknight]

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) jokes a year ago that in the future everyone’s job performance would be tracked the way we track an athlete’s stats.

Then companies would bid the same way they bid for pro baseball players.

The lesson here is that if someone can do your job better than you, he/she will make more money. Stop expecting someone to protect it for you.

[elucidator]

@John_Mace

…“Businessman” is a very broad term. I can think of quite a few of those whom I value more than your average teacher.

Oh, so if I modify that overly broad term, we would find ourselves in a state of agreement, then? Have you a suggestion to that happy end? Because otherwise, it kinda looks like you’re evading my point by way of a semantic trapdoor.

You wouldn’t Bricker me like that, would you, John?

[AlienVessels]

@emacknight

All that was based on Henry Ford who did the same thing with auto-manufacturing. Instead of having a bunch of highly skilled technicians building a car, break the task down into easily trainable components. The result were cars people could afford.

Revisionist history.

Henry Ford

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($110 in current dollar terms), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[23] A Cleveland Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement, “shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression.”.[24] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[25][26] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. (Using the consumer price index, this was equivalent to $111.10 per day in 2008 dollars.) It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[27] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[28] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)

Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[29] Ford’s policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[30] It may have been Couzzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[31]

Instead of using the modern short sighted method of planning by the bottom line, Ford looked at the big picture.

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

I love the idea of a mutually agreed to wage. In the real world, the owner can pay you what he wants Without a minimum wage or absent a union, your input is weak. He has the power. If you don’t like it, he will hire someone else who will work for less. As long as they can keep unemployment high, you are powerless.

Who’s fault is that? If you have no skills, ability, or work ethic, and hence you have no power. Do we blame the evil businessman? Or the lazy worker?

If you want a living wage, get a skill that society desires. Shitty teachers make shitty wages. A huge number of students I grew up with became teachers and subsequently bitched about their salaries. But a few of them were smart enough to get their bilingual certificate making them more valuable. A few others got masters degrees. Should we value them more? Or shit on their hard work and pay them all the same?

It’s 2011 for fucks sake, how are we still having this same bullshit communist discussion. It didn’t work, get over it. You only get paid what you are worth. Don’t like it, make yourself worth more. Even a moron knows to get his car washed before he puts it on craig’s list.

[AlienVessels]

@emacknight

The lesson here is that if someone can do your job better than you, he/she will make more money. Stop expecting someone to protect it for you.

Apparently you’ve never worked in a company where politics and/or seniority counts more than performance.

[emacknight]

@AlienVessels

Revisionist history.

Henry Ford - Wikipedia

Instead of using the modern short sighted method of planning by the bottom line, Ford looked at the big picture.

No one is denying that, since it’s all part of human resource management. Employee turn over is a very significant cost, it’s also one of the driving factors for keeping each task simple. Ford made his factory a desirable place to work, like Google, and attracted talent. You’ll also notice that both did that without unions.

[elucidator]

@emacknight

…Or the lazy worker?..

Don’t underestimate the value of lazy. They tell you necessity was the mother of invention, but we know it was laziness. We invent labor saving devices to save us time, we invented the fishing pole and beer so we’d know what to do with all that extra time.

And I know there are many who declare driving ambition to be a virtue, I remain skeptical.

[emacknight]

@AlienVessels

Apparently you’ve never worked in a company where politics and/or seniority counts more than performance.

Were you forced to work there?

[magellan01]

@Larry_Mudd

When I was in my twenties, I organized a union at my workplace. It seemed like a good idea at the time. (Our certification was overturned because of a totally bogus community-of-interest claim, and everyone got the sack.)

My feelings about unions (largely influenced by Woody Guthrie and Utah Phillips, etc.) have largely reversed. Collective bargaining can still make sense when workers are completely interchangeable and easily replaceable, but I generally don’t want to be in that situation.

My last union job (and my current non-union job) really changed my perception. The job was no great shakes – just order assembly in a warehouse. (Designer clothes.) A slightly different position opened up- basically the exact same thing, except exclusively for Hudson’s Bay orders – slightly different inventory in a separate area, and large volume orders with a bit more time pressure. Nobody wanted to do it, at all, at all. (More work!) I was mainly looking for something (anything) to make my resume a little more attractive for the next gig, so I volunteered – but I talked my into a fifty cent (wow!) raise as an incentive. Of course, that’s a grievance. Stop work, meetings to be had. “Not fair! He’s doing the same work and earning more than me.” The same work now, but of course it wasn’t the same work when the manager had to do it himself for a week because it was obviously more work, which is why nobody was in a hurry to do it. I eventually got to keep the controversial $40 a month extra I earned for stepping up to bust my hump for 160 hours, but I had to fight for it.

This contrasts starkly with my current job, where I was hired as a file clerk, but took every opportunity to take more responsibility and point out how I might improve on current methods. Four years on, my salary has nearly doubled. I prefer not to be Harrison Bergeron’d, if I can avoid it.

I love this!!! Good for you. As I’ve said, if you have initiative, the last thing you want is a union. And the more we do to reward initiative the better. Excellent. Thanks for sharing that.

[emacknight]

I think so much of this comes down to the stupidity of the average worker. As a few examples:

1. I just climbed Kilimanjaro, and doing so required employing 5 porters to carry all our shit. When we arrived at the park gate there was a line of about 100 men trying to get hired, for what amounted to about $6 a day–to carry a giant pack up the side of a very dangerous mountain. Now, they could unionize, and demand $12 per day, but the reality would be that we’d have hired half as many workers. If you could have seen some of the stupid shit they haul up that mountain, but it meant another guy employed. Double his salary and suddenly we re-think if we really need sets of porcelain dishware, or if we’d be happy with plastic. We probably didn’t need wooden folding chairs either.

2. I’ve managed a lot of seasonal workers, and now also managed a graveyard shift. Employee turn over is huge in both aspects regardless of pay or working conditions. So the incentive is to keep the tasks as simple as possible to minimize the cost of turnover. But once that cost is minimized, the job (and worker) become extremely replaceable. I have no reason to pay a person more, when his job can easily be done by 100 guys lined up at the door.

It all comes back to commodity pricing. If someone can make the same product for less, you’re screwed.

[magellan01]

@Zeriel

And in a world where I can trust business to not collude itself, we won’t need unions any more. I, however, do not trust business in general to give me a fair deal when they can screw me–a lesson I learned at my daddy’s knee, mind you, watching him run his general store and fighting every step of the way to get treated fairly by suppliers.

Suppliers are not like employees. And, yes, collusion is and should be against the law.

@Zeriel

So as long as the possibility exists for companies in the same field and geographic area to collude to drive wages down, I see no reason to not have unionization available to push wages up–management is, after all, just as free to not accept union wages. I think you’ll find that in places where unions are truly unreasonable, people will quit the union and go to work if union unreasonableness is what’s really causing wage negotiations to stall.

As an employee you always have the right to tell an employer “no”. And if you’re good at what you do in a world without unions not only will you always have a job, you’ll make more than you would as just one of the faceless masses.

And again, I’ll say that collusion is against the law.

And now a question for you: what do you have against a person making more money than the throngs in his field if he is better at what he does. Why should he, someone with more talent, skill, and/or initiative be relegated to to be compensated the same as the average or those seeking to do a minimum of work? I find that disgusting. A crime against the human soul. You’re fine with that?

[magellan01]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Sure. In fantasy land, there wouldn’t need to be any unions. In fantasy land, employers would always pay the worth of the employee, making a fair evaluation of the appropriate wage for the job and the experience and individual added value of the employee.

Do you really not understand that employers typically don’t act that way in reality? That employers can and often do act “iimmoral” in their own ways? I think you are severely myopic if you really see the world as one might infer from your post.

Nut who is to determine the real worth of a job? The employee? The employer? I say neither of them can do it alone. And the free market will result in the wage being appropriate. Too low and no one will want to do it. Very high, and there’ll be lines around the block. which means the wage will soon be lowered.

[AlienVessels]

@emacknight

Were you forced to work there?

I’m not talking about one instance. Every single place I’ve worked in, and every business I’ve consulted for has politics and seniority issues that often trump ability, skills, and drive.

And I notice you ignored the question.

[Gyrate]

Where is this magic land where, if you don’t like your working conditions, you can just swan off to one more to your liking?

[AlienVessels]

@magellan01

And again, I’ll say that collusion is against the law.

Name for me the last time you saw reported in the news a case in which a company has been found to be guilty of breaking the law where it wasn’t settled with no admission of guilt by the corporation.

@magellan01

And now a question for you: what do you have against a person making more money than the throngs in his field if he is better at what he does. Why should he, someone with more talent, skill, and/or initiative be relegated to to be compensated the same as the average or those seeking to do a minimum of work? I find that disgusting. A crime against the human soul. You’re fine with that?

It turns out that being good at corporate politics often trumps skill at the job. If you could make a magic wand and suddenly people were actually compensated for skill and hard work reliably, I might change my views.

There are all sorts of assumptions about the “efficiency” and “rationality” of corporations. As someone who made a living in part by going into businesses and figuring out what and why people are doing what they’re doing in the workplace, I found a lot of counter-productive decision making.

[emacknight]

@AlienVessels

I’m not talking about one instance. Every single place I’ve worked in, and every business I’ve consulted for has politics and seniority issues that often trump ability, skills, and drive.

And I notice you ignored the question.

My apologies: yes, I have worked, and currently work in that environment. As such I am currently assessing my worth, and planning to change jobs. I expect to get paid what I think I’m worth, if I can’t find an employer willing to pay that, what am I actually worth? I take it for granted that all places have an element of politics and seniority built into the equation. The fastest way around that is to move laterally. Go to another company for a year, then apply back to your first. If you are valuable they’ll hire you back at a hire rate than had you stayed a year. If you are truly needed they will ignore politics and seniority in favour of their bottom line.

If instead, the company is based on politics and seniority, the company will face challenges in the market place. They are competing against other companies that place either a higher or lower emphasis on politics and seniority. Their profit and sustainability will ultimately be reflected in that.

If, on the other hand, you are not valuable you won’t get paid more. If you are easily replaced you won’t get paid more.

Why is the price of $1433? Why did it go up? What causes it to go down? Should we establish a rule that says its only work $1200? Should we have collusion and price fixing?

If not for gold, why for labour?

[emacknight]

@AlienVessels

It turns out that being good at corporate politics often trumps skill at the job. If you could make a magic wand and suddenly people were actually compensated for skill and hard work reliably, I might change my views.

I hear this a lot, and it’s bullshit. Office politics are part of the soft skills that go with any job. Take a step back and think about the skill of “having the ability to drive to work.”

How is it that some people are able to get out the door and make their way to work? Is it fair that some are better than others? I mean, in the end, your ability to ride a bus doesn’t really make you better at your job. But then, for some reason people get fired for not showing up.

Being good at my job doesn’t allow me to piss off our administrative staff, or the janitorial staff. My last boss, although talented, got canned because she couldn’t play nice with others. Think about the variety of star athletes and movie stars that can’t find work because they were too much of a diva.

Oddly enough, politics and seniority are the only things unions seem to reward. Drive a bus for 10 years and you’re worth more than a guy that’s done it 1. Has a union ever recognized skills and talents?

@AlienVessels

I found a lot of counter-productive decision making.

Of course. Go into an engineering research lab and you’ll see counter-productive decision making. That’s hardly unique to management.

[elucidator]

@emacknight

…Has a union ever recognized skills and talents? …

You don’t know? Tucked away within pronouncements based on unimpeachable authority and knowledge, you gotta ask that?

But of course a union has done so, if only by the sheer weight of numbers, even if only by accident.

Unions are human institutions, hence flawed. So is government. Worker protection by unionization isn’t a question of efficiency, its a question of justice. Probably a case could well be made that an elite nobility might govern more efficiently than a chaotic democracy. But democracy, for all its flaws, is more just. Unions, for all their flaws, promote justice.

[AlienVessels]

@emacknight

I hear this a lot, and it’s bullshit. Office politics are part of the soft skills that go with any job. Take a step back and think about the skill of “having the ability to drive to work.”

How is it that some people are able to get out the door and make their way to work? Is it fair that some are better than others? I mean, in the end, your ability to ride a bus doesn’t really make you better at your job. But then, for some reason people get fired for not showing up.

Being good at my job doesn’t allow me to piss off our administrative staff, or the janitorial staff. My last boss, although talented, got canned because she couldn’t play nice with others. Think about the variety of star athletes and movie stars that can’t find work because they were too much of a diva.

Oddly enough, politics and seniority are the only things unions seem to reward. Drive a bus for 10 years and you’re worth more than a guy that’s done it 1. Has a union ever recognized skills and talents?

Of course. Go into an engineering research lab and you’ll see counter-productive decision making. That’s hardly unique to management.

There’s a difference between work well and play with others and active use of office politics to sabotage the careers of others.

You’re muddying the water with references to the mechanics of getting to work. I’m not talking about the ability to sharpen a pencil or operate a door either.

There are plenty of people that manage to get to the top and enjoy stepping on every head at the bottom. One of the interesting things about servicing companies as an IT consultant is that if you’ve been with the account for a while, you start to become “invisible”. It’s amazing what goes on “behind closed doors”.