I think we may be missing an important point here. In order not to be inflationary, rises in salary should be based on increases in productivity.
Now, increases in productivity can result from a several different things. One is capital improvements, paid for by the company (employer) in question. But that may or may not require harder work or a superior skill set on the part of the workers. If either is required, then those employees should get a higher salary, because they have contributed to the increase in productivity.
Another, and I suspect more common, scenario is that a company lays off a significant percentage of its employees while maintaining its workload or increases its output without hiring more employees. In this situation, employees are forced to increase their productivity to make up for the increased workload they now carry. Such employees also ought to get a share of the increased profits, as they are now doing more work.
When the workers are actually increasing in productivity, they absolutely should get commensurate improvements in pay.
As for why we as a society are so against support for workers (especially in the form of unions), I think there are a several factors involved. One, of course, is the ever popular “I’ve got mine; fuck you,” the unspoken mantra of most conservatives, as far as I can tell. Another, for those who can actually put two and two together, the fact is that higher wages typically will be passed on in the form of higher costs: hence, the inordinate success of imports from countries whose salaries tend to be very low. Next, I think most people have an inflated idea of where they will end up financially; they identify with the executives, even though they themselves are workers. And workers doing poorly tend to resent anyone doing similar work and getting better pay and benefits - the old dog in the manger viewpoint. Last, but not least, I think people still cling to the idea that the harder and better they work, the better their remuneration will be. I really don’t think that’s particularly true; companies usually get away with paying as little as they can to hold on to the people, and fairness is not typically a criterion they consider.
I think all of these beliefs are flawed to some extent, but they lead to fact that many blue collar workers have no interest in, for example, supporting unions or even improving the system in order to better the condition of other blue collar workers. People’s interest is largely in increasing their own pay and benefits, and they don’t see to recognize that even if they themselves are not union members, they typically benefit from the success of unions in related fields.
Of course, the companies themselves are geared toward constant growth, in both gross income and profits. Each year, the companies I’ve worked for have given “numbers” each department is supposed to meet. If the department shows a profit, even an increased profit from the previous year, but doesn’t meet its “numbers,” the companies use this as an excuse to cut costs, typically in the form of layoffs (and thus increased workload on the part of the employees who remain). Thus a company can be making a healthy profit, and showing signficant increase in productivity from their workforce, but use these “numbers” as an excuse to cut costs further, even though the shortfall may have nothing whatsoever to do with the performance of the workers. This has always struck me as unfair.
I don’t know what the answer to all of this is, but I think these ideas should be thrown into the mix. If we don’t come up with a solution, the wide divide between the wealthy and the poor/middle income will only continue to grow, especially in economic times such as these, where jobs are hard to come by.