But not to fire people.
Also part of the contract. See mediation for the employer-favored side of that equation.
It can’t be part of the contract before the contract is signed.
Not sure what you mean. If you don’t have a contract with the union, then you don’t have to worry about firing anyone since you won’t have union employees.
-
If the contract with the union expired, it is not in force. So whether it says you can or cannot fire anyone is irrelevant.
-
There are labor laws don’t allow employers to fire striking workers with no regard to whether that is in the contract or not.
-
There are laws saying you can’t fire workers that are trying to unionize to begin with.
The government forcing employers not to fire workers makes the contracts that are signed under duress.
-
Expired contracts are usually continued for a period of time under the terms of the old contract, so the old contracts provisions would be in force. If there is no contract the employer can fire whomever he pleases (of course assuming it’s not discrimination against a protected class).
-
This is covered in the contract, not labor laws. Can you cite a law that says you’re not able to fire striking workers? Reagan did it with the FAA, IIRC.
-
Employers can’t fire workers FOR trying to unionize. I’m pretty sure they can fire for other causes.
Reagan did this with public sector unions. I am talking private sector.
In the U.S., as established in the National Labor Relations Act there is a legally protected right for private sector employees to strike to gain better wages, benefits, or working conditions and they cannot be fired.
Was not aware of that. I thought it generally wasn’t done because retraining an entire workforce is more expensive than bargaining, plus the union making life miserable for the scab workers.
Apparently though, the favor isn’t all on the side of the employees. If their striking for any reason other than unfair labor practices, then they can be replaced during the strike and must wait for an opening to be reinstated. If the strike is due to unfair practices, they must be reinstated immediately.
As long as the government is involved and laws are made forcing one side or another, the contract that results is not “voluntarily entered into”.
The contract is voluntarily entered. They never have to contract with union labor. They do because it’s to their benefit, one way or another.
All the legal provisions might not be to all parties liking, but that doesn’t seem like much of a point. Regulations are a necessary evil.
I have had many minimum wage low skill jobs that paid under $9/hr that was less work and more responsibility than volunteering at a hospital when I was 16 years old.
Why is it legal to work for $0/hr as a volunteer but if they paid $1/hr it is illegal?
I haven’t worked in 3 months now and would gladly go work for $1/hr at any of my past minimum wage jobs instead of just getting rejected job applications.
$1/hr is better than nothing.
$1 hr is no different than nothing. What a terrible principle to follow.
You mean math?
Common sense.
The reason minimum wage hikes result in higher employment, not lower, is that the boost to the economy of the greater spending by now-higher-paid minimum wage earners trumps the loss to the economy of the labor of people whose labor isn’t worth the new minimum wage, but was worth the old one.
People who make minimum wage spend all their money. They have pent up demand that is opened up by the higher income. It’s like the person above said… now you have 9 people making 9/hr (81 total) whereas before you had 10 people making 8/hr (80 total). Now that extra 1$ in the economy gets circulated, and then for every 9 people who lost their job, a new one gets hired at 9/hr (making 90 total). Now there’s another 10$ in the economy and another person gets hired (99$/hr) and the business is making an extra $1 profit to boot. Getting the money circulating multiplies it.
The above is a simplification but that’s how economics works, simplifying the complicated so you can make calculations with it 
Anyway that’s the basis of the reason raising minimum wage boosts the economy, even though the immediate effect is that some folks lose jobs. In the middle term, more gain jobs than lose them. In the long term, it’s a wash as inflation eats up the gains mentioned above after a while. But then it’s all recycled in the end, and by the time inflation swallows the benefits, technology and efficiency get it back again or something
Wow. An economic perpetual motion machine.
Let’s raise the MW even more and create even more jobs!
This is Great Debates. An appeal to “common sense” is a logical fallacy.
Got anything else?
Now your just being contrary to be contrary. He predicated his argument with this:
Obviously, if you keep raising the MW or raise it to high, the rate of labor lost doesn’t trump the value added by additional spending.
Well, I’d imagine it might be pretty hard to get to work or pay for any work related expenses on $1 hr. So I doubt anyone could possibly work for $1 hr. Sounds like common sense to me with a dash of math. 
Although, looking back on the context of that comment, my comment was uncalled for. Sorry about that Austerity.
No, because that was actually the part I was responding to, even though I quoted the entire post. That statement simply isn’t true. Or, economists are not in any type of agreement that it is true.
I think it’s safe to say that small changes in the MW do not have a measurable effect on unemployment (maybe it goes up a tiny bit, maybe it goes down a tiny bit), but we know that you can’t raise it arbitrarily high without having a negative effect. Where that inflection point is, we don’t know. So, let’s approach this subject with a bit of humility and not make claims that you can raise the cost of something and increase the demand for it at the same time.