Thanks for your answer. Do you think the ‘conservative side’ however you would currently define it, shares this postion, or would you be an outlier on this issue, do you think?
I think that that while conservatives certainly want fewer regulations, that position gets contorted by the opposition. Thusly:
Conservatives want fewer regulations.
Conservatives don’t like regulations
Conservatives are anti-regulation.
Conservatives want no regulations.
I’d say that the most fervent group opposed to regulation, and even then not without favoring some regulation, are big “L” Libertarians.
Similarly, conservatives are not opposed to having a federal government or paying taxes or having a safety net. It’s all a matter of degree. And since they want less of those things than liberals, their positions often get contorted into something that can motivate the liberal base.
What I’m saying is that claims that “right-to-work” laws improve employment statistics are inconclusive at best, and irrelevant even if they were true because creating shitty jobs or temporary ones is hardly a measure of prosperity. However, there are fairly straightforward statistics that in the aggregate seem to support the intuitive conclusion that when you eliminate unions, worker compensation and benefits decrease (see below).
The rest of your argument is just saying that unions alone are no guarantee of fair compensation or good working conditions. I agree, and BTW I’m not even a fan of unions in general and personally count myself lucky that I’ve never been in a position of having to join one. But the fact is that for many kinds of jobs in many kinds of industries, unions are necessary, just as they were necessary in the earlier phases of industrialization – because the only alternative is the presumed free-market mobility of the workers or the benign altruism of the employer, both of which are often non-existent myths. For many of these jobs, unions are – as they say in mathematics – a necessary **but not sufficient **condition for securing workers’ rights. However, unions + labor laws – both of which conservatives generally oppose – together go a long way toward doing so.
The study I quoted was this one from the Ontario Federation of Labour [PDF file], and the particular figure of $5300 lower income in “right-to-work” states was from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and is not adjusted. However, it’s backed up by many similar objective statistics and the same conclusion remains true even when adjusted for many economic and demographic factors. A few other quotes from that same report:
In summary, “right-to-work” is just another example of right-wing irrational ideology, and one which, in typical right-wing fashion, means the opposite of what it says, because its true purpose is to benefit the corporate oligarchy
Except that “right to work” is no such thing. It doesn’t phase out the common labor laws, it doesn’t ban or prohibit unions. The only thing it does is not compel people to join a union as a condition of employment, which is why it’s called “Right to Work.” You have a right to work whether or not you wish to join a union.
A definitely slanted research piece that’s only real evidence of harm seems to be the fact that you make $5,500 (unadjusted) less. One thing to note: Most states with Right to Work are in the lower costs of living brackets.
Go to Table 1 on page 10 of their sourcedocument for that 18 of 22 states statistic, and you can see this yourself. The highlighted right to work states are not only mixed very well in with all of the other states, but they are mostly states with fairly low costs of living in the “Below average” statistic. There is no definite graduation where RTW states are on the bottom and nonRTW states are on the top.
I simply can’t see RTW as an indicator of either worker oppression or Republican excess. There are so many actually harmful policies out there that this one used to give people their own choice on whether to join a union or not doesn’t come anywhere close to rating with me.
Bullshit. It means that a worker and an employer can engage in what each view as a mutually beneficial relationship unmolested. Now, once we remove the minimum wage that relationship will be even simpler and purer.
How will removal of the minimum wage help anyone but the large businesses? Do you really think that WalMart’s subsidy of their wages from the public coffers is appropriate or fair to any other retailer they are competing with?
well, they are just as free to join Walmart in the race to the bottom, aren’t they?
‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are basically meaningless labels slapped onto huge incoherent changeable alliances of factions. So ‘‘conservatives’ getting what they want’ is meaningless.
I propose the two terms are banned from SD debates from now.
Management already has advantages in the worker/employer relationship. Management has more money. Management has the unilateral right to fire employees while employees cannot fire management. And management can negotiate as a single entity and can use the tactic of “divide and conquer” against employees working as individuals.
Unions are just an attempt to equalize the worker/employee relationship by giving employees the same advantages that management has.
Management oppose unions out of self-interest. They’d prefer to have an unequal relationship where they hold more power.
So what. The employee has the ultimate power. He can say “no”. Your analysis pretty much assumes that a fair working relationship is an impossibility without a union. Are you really not aware of the millions and millions of people employed right now, without unions, that are perfectly happy?
But the employee’s power is the nuclear option. If I don’t like my job, I can quit. But then I can’t pay my rent, so it’s not a realistic option. Otherwise, it comes down to if I don’t like my job, I can begin the long process of searching for another job.
True story: I don’t like my industry’s practice of hiring people on short-term, non-renewable four-month contracts. I don’t like the fact that hiring is based on a tremendous amount of unpaid work up front. (I’m a university professor, and to be hired for a given course I have to submit a syllabus for any course I want to teach.) If I don’t like it, I can say “no,” and walk. And then what? There are a limited number of employers in my area, and they all have similar rules. It is, in effect, an oligopoly, and only a union can really challenge the system. Or common-sense long-term planning, but like anyone else employers prefer short-term cost savings over long-term thinking.
What subsidy are you talking about?
As to the rest, small businesses benefit from the abolishment of a minimum wage, too. Why would you think they wouldn’t? If large business do, why not medium and small businesses?
Individuals benefit, too. Maybe the place down the street that can’t afford to hire an additional worker at minimum wage can hire one at less than minimum wage. And if I don’t have a job and hope to get one at minimum wage, but there are none out there, that job down the street might be a lifesaver
Additionally, I think the minimum wage creates the notion of “minimum wage jobs” that is not helpful. There are people out there who then believe that those are the only jobs they are worthy of. Eliminate the concept of a minimum wage and the prices for work fluctuate more. So, one can enter the workforce at terms that suit them and work their way up. Right now I think many businesses get off the hook by simply categorizing a job as a minimum wage job and the employees at that level become pure commodity. And their is very little incentive for someone to feel they can substantially change their situation for the better. So, if there is no minimum wage, there can be greater variance in wages among workers at the very bottom of the wage scale. Let’s say I currently have five employees making the minimum wage of, say, $8.00 per hour. So my cost is $40.00 per hour, which is all I can afford. That means everyone is stuck making $8.00. But lets say that the value of the contribution these five employees makes varies. Wouldn’t make more sense for me to pay a more valuable employee $8.50 or $9.00 and a less valuable employee $7.50 or $7.00? Wouldn’t that be better for the better employee? Wouldn’t it be fairer for everyone to be compensated based on their contribution?
Well, “nuclear” certainly is a scary word.
I freely don’t see the problem with the above. One thing we all learn at some point is that unless you’ve planned for it, do not leave a job if you don’t already have another lined up. That’s true whether there is a union involved or not.
Again, not seeing the problem. It is up to you to put yourself in the best position. If you’re in a situation where supply exceeds demand, maybe you should make changes. For instance, increase your credentials, find another line of work for which there is more demand, or move to a place where the demand for the job you want is higher. I never understood the premise that undergirds your point, namely, that someone is entailed to a particular job in a particular local, and at a particular price. That just seems bizarre to me, as it doesn’t comport with reality.
Yet states with higher than federal minimum wages are still doing as well as states without. Maybe the correlation between minimum wages and unemployment isn’t as strong as our conservative friends would have us believe.
This is what puzzles me about conservatives- whenever there is a choice between siding with big corporations and siding with the people, whether it be about minimum wages, insurance coverages, unions, environmental regulations, etc., conservatives will side with the corporations 100% of the time. Why is that? Is the old canard “what’s good for GM is good for America” still their mindset? I could see this attitude if one was a business owner, but there are tons of conservatives plugging away in not terribly lucrative jobs that would rather cut off their arms than limit corporate power one iota.
Well, I already have the top qualification (PhD). It’s just, as you said, that supply exceeds demand. I gather you think it’s reasonable to uproot from family and friends and drag my spouse to wherever I can find a job.
I have a job here. I am doing it. I am good at it, and I like it. It’s just that my employer benefits by keeping me on an endless string of part-time four-month contracts (it is going on four years now) for multiple employers rather than hiring me as a full-time employee at one. They can pay me less for my work than they could if I were full-time. I’m actually fine with what they pay me now: give me some job security, and I’ll be much happier. (I don’t want tenure: by all means, fire me if I’m incompetent or crazy.) Plus, if I can budget more than three months in advance, I can contribute more to the broader economy.
Again, true story: two of us work half-time for the same two employers, which are about 20 miles apart. How is this more sensible than each employer hiring one of us?
(Edit: this is a little confusing because I started out trying to simplify and realized I needed to mention both employers.)
Look, my heart goes out to you, it really does. But I think the solution should be be between you and your employer(s)/ Have you shared your willingness to work full time for the same rate? Seems like that would benefit both of you. You get what you say you want and they get a known entity that is good at his job and they don’t have to go through the rigamarole of of rehiring you every three months.
As far as your question, I do think it’s reasonable that you think about moving. People do it all the time. And many times they wind up in a place they love.
Finally, if the problem is one of supply and demand, w=how do you see a union fixing that? There’s a fundamental problem in the market. Seems like a union would either have to:
- increase the number of jobs (demand)
- reduce the number of people competing for the jobs (supply)
I guess there is a third option: that the union someone force one of the employers to act in a way that they feel is not best for their business. I don’t see any of those reasonable options. If it were me, I’d go to each employee, share with them your desire to work full time and try to make that happen. But I assume you’ve already done that. My next move would be to line up a full-time job elsewhere. Seems like you’re highly qualified, so I think there would be more than a few options out there.
But just for discussion, assuming that there aren’t better situations out there, that the supply/demand balance is the same way all over, would do you think are your options?
Continue on as I am, letting my employer know that I’m perfectly willing to go full-time the second anything opens up, knowing that it’s not an option. (I’m not really unhappy with the status quo. I just hate reapplying for my job three times a year.)
Part of the problem is that hiring in academia is a nightmare: the typical job application is upwards of 30 pages of material (I’ve given as much as 70 depending on the job) with three letters of reference up front. Hiring takes several months with multiple interviews, the last of which is over two full days, and once you have the job, it’s pretty much yours for life. Or else a four-month contract as I described. Nobody seems to realize that there is an in-between option!
(bolding mine)
This is a helpful post, as it highlights the disconnect. I in no way feel I am siding with corporations. I feel I am siding with people. Mainly the employee. I think it id=s healthier and will lead to better outcomes in the long run for employees to be fully in charge of their own labor. Whether that employee works for a huge corporation or a sole proprietor is a moot point.
But let’s say we do things and abolish the minimum wage. If your fear is that giant mega-corporations are going to try to get each low wage worker down from $8.00 to $7.50, I think your concern is misplaced. It actually benefits large corporations to have a set minimum wage, even if just for their own company. And that would once again be a way that corporations could compete fro workers. Easy example. McDonald’s and Burger King. If McD’s pays $7.50 and BK pays $8.00, who do you think is going to get more applications and be able to hire the better employees?
I think that the less people are treated—and feel—like commodities, the better. For everyone.
That’s a very interesting situation. I wonder why its so difficult and, as you, say, there are no in-between options. Another suggestion, maybe ask to take a person from the HR department or the President of the University out to lunch. I’d stress that it’s not about a job, but its about you wanting to talk to him about what you see as the problem, writ large. In short, I’d try to get a better understanding of why things are the way they are. Many time there are things at work, that we couldn’t imagine. maybe talk to a reporter and try to get an article published about what you describe, (in which you are just one minor data point). Maybe there is some law at play. Maybe it has to do with the cost of benefits. Maybe it has something to do with a union. Anyway, just trying to throw out a bunch of ideas in the hopes that maybe there’s something you hadn’t considered or maybe it’ll spark another one.
magellan01, you and I have disagreed in other threads, but I really appreciate the advice here. I’d been thinking of doing something similar and this helps push me in that direction.