No, the governor was masquerading as a reasonable person. Now he’s been exposed. Not only does the emperor not have any clothes, he’s not very well endowed.
Your CNN article is also about income, not wages. The Burkauser study’s use of “post-tax, post-transfer, size-adjusted household income including the ex-ante value of in-kind health insurance benefits” is the best measure of actual income, which is why they used it. The rival Saez-Piketty study overstates income inequality, as your NYT article notes.
Yes, the largest gains have been by the very wealthy. Why? Here’s the “gold standard” CBO study’s take:
The rich made better use of capital and business income than labor income. This put them in an ideal position to benefit directly from that 69% increase in GDP from 1979 to 2007. They bet on America, and the bet paid off.
Yes, in effect. As health care costs rose, the value of employer-paid health care benefits rose as well. It’s part of non-cash income; it can’t be ignored.
LOL
Oh wait you’re serious? Wake me when any state has laws against employee bullying and we can discuss recourse against employer abuse.
But your evidence that he’s a right-wing ideologue is based on his pushing for a law that 58% of the state supports. If he’s one, then 58% of the state is, too.
Evidently you’re not even trying to masquerade.
He said he wasn’t going to pursue “right-to-work” issues. He didn’t. The legislature did (very sneakily, too). He’s stuck with a no-win situation, signing or not signing. Either choice would make him look unreasonable to one side or the other.
IMHO, this is a sticky issue, and I’m not sure what’s right and what’s wrong. (I also don’t know enough specifics about the legislation, and this thread is unusually sparse in facts … but oh yeah, it’s in “great debates”.)
As someone without a dog in the fight, his actions seem pretty reasonable to me.
Now, someone might make the point that the legislature didn’t do this “all alone” and that he helped orchestrate it. If so, that would be good evidence against him. I haven’t heard anyone make that claim, let alone back it up.
I’m not suggesting that it should be ignored, I’m asking whether it’s appropriate to claim that the productivity rise 1979-2007 has been evenly distributed among wealthy and middle class, when health care costs have risen for both, yet non-health care income has only risen for one.
Did he really push for it? My impression (based on news reports, mostly liberal, before seeing this thread) was that he pretty much stood on the sidelines, except for saying that he’d sign it.
If he did push for it, it contradicts his campaign statements.
Could you require him to renegotiate his terms of work as he is no longer a part of the union bargaining unit? You could then set terms requiring more work, less pay, less benefits and see if he accepts or quits.
Your solution is wage controls? Bring back the OPA? I don’t think even the most entrenched unions would sign off on that one.
You can fire him if his labor slips below your standard, or if he decides to renegotiate the terms of his employment. So the harm to your business is nil.
Here’s an overview. Here’s another. The specific effects of such laws are difficult to isolate, but generally you’ll see higher employment rates at lower average wages. The goal isn’t “harming unions” for its own sake, but rather a freer labor market.
You must have a pretty low opinion of Michiganders if you assume that they support the bill because they don’t understand it.
Why should it have? Serious question. Has the productivity increases come because labor has gotten more productive on it’s own, or because automation and expert systems have gotten more efficient, making labor more productive?
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Yes, in effect. As health care costs rose, the value of employer-paid health care benefits rose as well. It’s part of non-cash income; it can’t be ignored.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, exactly…and it’s something that is generally ignored in these threads. It’s actually a large part of an overall salary, and a large part of that is being paid by the employer. I knew what he was talking about, which is simply wages, which have been pretty stagnant or even decreasing for the last several years or even the last decade, though purchasing power has gone up as goods and services have also leveled off or even decreased (for instance, look at things like PCs or flat screen TVs or the like and how cheap they have become…and how ubiquitous they are today at all levels of US society).
That’s my understanding as well. He didn’t want to push for this as he felt it was too contentious, but now that it’s happening without him pushing he’s perfectly willing to sign on the dotted line.
You don’t have to fire him for anything. Just fire him. Or as others have suggested, you can force him to renegotiate the terms of his employment to whatever the hell you want: 80 hours of work per week for 1/2 the wages he was making previously, no health care, no retirement/401k, a dress code that includes scuba gear, etc.
The same reason wildcat strikes are illegal: unions don’t support free labor, they don’t like competition any more than businesses do, and the New Deal gave them the power to suppress both. The National Labor Relations Board ruled for plant-wide unions, as opposed to craft unions, in service of the idea of industrial unionism, which discourages labor competition. This position eased in the later '30s, however.
I didn’t make that claim. Income for the wealthiest Americans increased disproportionate to over classes during that period. I responded to the claim by Evil Captor that middle class wages have been stagnant for decades. This is demonstrably not the case. Health care and other non-cash income is part of the increase.
In order to encourage non-members to join the unions, why don’t they negotiate their contracts so that union benefits apply only to union members?
And of no particular surprise:
Are you sure that’s legal in Michigan?
It’s certainly not in many if not most states.
Legal schmeagle…you just put a gun to that dudes head and force that mofo to renegotiate his contract or you bus’ a cap in his ass!! Make him take half pay and wear a pink tutu…plus make him give up his wife for extra services as well, if you know what I mean. wink wink, nudge nudge
I’m certain that in the US in general and specifically in every RTW state, employment is “at will” with a very few discriminatory limitations. However, as I stated, no reason needs to be given for terminating a person’s employment.
“Your services will no longer be required.”
BAM! Employment terminated. At that point it is up to the newly unemployed person to seek a lawyer and then try to prove in court why they were fired. I’m sure that most people can imagine how hard it would be for a lawyer to win the vast majority of these types of lawsuits.
ETA: I’d be interested in seeing your cites that anything I described would be illegal under any US law.
For the first few that may be correct but once a pattern of terminating only non-union employees is established it will become much easier.
Isn’t it funny how Republicans say they’re all for “smaller government” until it’s something that affects the bottom line for their backers?