Cleveland v Baltimore
I don’t have to. There are dozens of international conventions defining those terms in less aspirational language. For example, the ILO Conventions limit working hours to 48 per week or 10 per day.
Of course they would have.
Unless you think that the 121 refs we have are the only people on the planet capable of the job and when they retire or die we’re screwed because no one can replace them.
And then you get someone like Henry Ford who decides to raise wages and institute an 8-hour work day. Both with no union involvement. And then other car companies followed his lead.
But why are you so desirous of debating as if we were in 1912?
No, you don’t have to explain what cannot be explained. Your comment here supports my position on the UNDHR. The words are virtually meaningless. Just more of the UN leftist kumbaya world huggsy-wuggsy pablum. Probably written but a committee made up of representatives from countries where they still stone people for things like adultery.
I doubt whether Henry Ford would have done that if he didn’t want to head off unionization. Unions tend to raise the wages and benefits of workers in non-union firms.
Not to bust your balls, but do you have a cite to support that position. In everything I had read (it’s been a while though) it was always presented as an offensive move, not a defensive one. He wanted to attract the best workers and ensure that he would have very little turnover.
Keep mind that Ford raised wages in 1914; the UAW wasn’t founded until 1935.
No worries.
-
The general effect I alluded to has statistical support.
-
There was union strife before the 1930s.
-
I’m having some doubts about my claim though. This site emphasizes turnover (but not “Best workers” actually). They also note that it was a profit-sharing plan. I’m guessing that latter aspect was intended to discourage turnover as well.
Ford was notoriously anti-union, so I may have mucked up my facts on this one.
I don’t have all the facts myself. This site points to attrition being the driving force, as well. Though I think it stands to reason that if you’re paying the best wage in town you’d be able to get the best workers. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the calculus, but factual, it does appear to be driven by the desire to reduce attrition.
I think it’s more a case of meritocracy. Sports officiating is presumably a fairly open business - there’s no caste system. People enter the system at the lower levels and rise to the level of their ability. The regular NFL officials were in the NFL because they were the best officials. The replacement officials were people who hadn’t had the ability to rise to the NFL level prior to the lockout. They hadn’t even had the ability to rise to the near-NFL level of the top college games. If they had the ability to be high-level officials, they already would have been high-level officials.
What I was taught low these many many years ago at the business school at Kent State, was also that Ford paid his workers relatively well because he recognized that the workers needed to have wages that were high enough to afford Ford’s own products. People making $1 a day couldn’t afford to buy cars.
I read that in my high school history book and there’s some evidence that the popular press of the day made this argument. It makes no sense though: surely Ford’s workforce made up a tiny share of final demand.
The grain of truth inside is that doing low-skill high-pace monotonous work is hard, and it requires extra pay if you don’t want people quitting all the time and driving up your labor/training costs.
Sort of. Realistically though, modern industrial relations were being invented at the time. I understand that workers were typically hired at the gate: there’s one story of a foreman throwing an apple into a crowd of hopefuls. Whoever caught it got to work that day. Workers were thought to be little more than cogs in a machine. As I see it, Ford’s $5/day policy reflected the realization that they weren’t wholly interchangeable. That trend has continued over time: since the 1980s US manufacturing output has steadily increased as the workforce has declined. But the quality of the workforce has improved. It’s not unusual for college graduates to go into high tech manufacturing: it’s very skilled work today.
I’ve read through most of this thread and my opinion is to say fuck off to all of this “scab” bullshit. You have no inherent right to your job. If you make $50k per year to make widgets, and I can make widgets just as good as you can for $45k per year, then it sucks to be you for overpricing yourself.
I owe no duty to you, or your stupid fucking union, to respect any type of picket line. I am out for my family and the food on my table.
That being said, if my widgets are inferior to yours, then it sucks to be ME and the employer. The employer made a very bad decision to hire me instead of paying you the $50k. I will get fired, and the employer suffers for the inferior product that was put out, plus the bad will he earned with you. He hires you back at what you demand.
Do you see how the free fucking market works? This “race to the bottom” is nonsense. Once you get a wage below what people who are competent for the job will work for, the product suffers. Any wage higher than that, the consumer suffers.
I shouldn’t pay a janitor $100k per year to clean the bathrooms because he is a great guy and I would like him to have a pool in his backyard. That is a disservice to my customers and my stakeholders who want me to deliver a competitive product.
Net job growth under his watch.
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
Well, then, it’s in the interest of those who are in it together to remove those who aren’t. Selfish people are dangerous people because the usual restraints of not hurting others does not affect them, so we have to apply other methods of restraint. One of those is treating them like shit, so that they don’t get as much out of it as they should.
Not that this necessarily has anything to do with this case. I just have a problem with people like you who think individuals shouldn’t give a shit about society at large. Looking out only for you own interests is a disproven method, as maximizing the good for all is actually more to your benefit. It’s basic Nashian game theory.
But that’s the problem. The reason unions formed in the first place occurred because we found that it doesn’t work that way. The market is not perfect. That you produce an inferior product does not necessarily hurt sales, because there’s often no alternative for people to use instead. Only there are only shortterm decreases in product usage because people are upset, but, if no competitor shows up soon, they often go back.
I’m not sure which way it will work here. I don’t follow football, so I don’t know if, say, college football competes with the NFL well enough that people would go watch that instead of watching games. Or at least would just stay home and watch TV rather than paying to go to the game.
The question is, are these poor refs actually hurting the NFL bottom line, or can they at least be predicted to do so? Then I can see this working. Otherwise, I don’t.
Your position on the UDHR is itself meaningless, because you don’t actually know anything about it. About three seconds of Googling would have told you the drafting committee included members from the US, US, France, Australia, Canada, the USSR, China, Chile and the Lebanon.
However, having considered your point, you are correct. Henceforth, I will pay no more attention to huggsy-wuggsy pablum like the US Declaration of Independence and the UDHR.
Its not like the replacement referees were the guys who were reffing for Big 10 or Pac 10 games. They were reffing for high school football and the lingerie league. Reffing may not be a talent position but its still a skill position and these guys were a loooong way from having the requisite level of skill.
Its like walking into a top law firm and firing all the lawyers and replacing them with lawyers from lower tier firms because they work for less.