And that’s called moving the goalposts. Assuming that WalMart is profitable enough to continue under it’s current model even with a union, how would that alter the competitive framework of retail sales in America? It might be satisfying to drag in unrelated negative statements about WalMart, but that doesn’t prove they need a union.
As a corporate white collar employee or as a retail monkey?
Do you think I care about the “competitive framework of retail sales in America” ? What matters to me is whether or not it’s employees can feed, cloth and shelter themselves, preferably without recourse to food stamps. People are important, not corporations.
Then will you concede that your statement about what “the presence of Walmart tends to” is irrelevant? I admit I’m operating on the assumption that this was just a weak gratuitous shot about the death of mom-and-pop stores. If you had another meaning in mind, please explain it.
Got any evidence WalMart employees in particular are having such troubles?
Got any arguments that don’t fall back on tired slogans?
I think they should have to. The workers dont generally have the option of just replacing the owner. If both sides have to find a middle ground, the system works.
No, it isn’t. You are acting like the poor owners have no power in this arrangement.
Precisely why it should be mandatory to only deal with a union. The owner has no real incentive to do anything but crush the workers and make them into slaves. When business behave without conscience, then other organizations have to make them do what is right and fair. Other wise you wind up with a few powerfull controlling the rest of us as slaves.
Sure, they do. They can find a new owner by seeking employment elsewhere, or even become owners themselves by founding their own companies. Are you suggesting that once a person is employed by a company, the owner is obliged to keep that employee indefinitely?
Well, for starters, I never called them “poor”. What I object to is the obligation you want to impose on them, in which an employee can make any demand and the owner is obliged to negotiate or capitulate. In any voluntary association, I’d hope that either party can walk away any time they feel the other party is being unreasonable and further negotiations are pointless.
Well, apparently slavery is okay in your world, when the slaves are people you don’t like. A functioning legal system, in which issue of negligence, harassment, abuse and prejudice can put the brakes on the more egregious abuses, but it’s not enough to claim that an owner who doesn’t want to pay more than minimum wage is crushing anyone.
Well, the owners can go found another company if your talking extremes here. But in the real world the union workers have to stick with a union gig or get kicked out of the union. Your negotiating with the union as a whole here, maybe a few can run off and fine work somewhere else but not most of them.
Unfortunately if the owner is free to hire outside the union and just fire all of them, when you have a period of high unemployemnt then the workers are powerless…which is what I think we should avoid. When wages drop (and they do without colelctive bargaining, the country as a whole suffers.
Who is it I don’t like? Business owners? I am one. I have just witnessed first hand too many times when business take advantage of the employees because times are hard and jobs are few. I’m not intersted in making anyone a slave…Just a more level playing field
Actually, if that ever happened, I did miss it. I would also be curious whether the “best companies” survey included the stores or, (as has happened with several other companies, such as McDonald’s), was it limited to back office personnel?
On the other hand, Wal-Mart has been successfully sued in multiple cases for violating the rights of workers, so that historical record is out there.
Sam’s claim about WalMart’s making the Fortune “100 Best Companies to Work For” list used to be true, but is outdated. They appear to have lost their ranking precisely because of their labor-policy problems and worker disaffection:
WalMart is definitely not a shining example of a model non-unionized workplace that makes its workers happy.
(Unsupported cynical speculation: Given WalMart’s record of pressuring and manipulating employees, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that its earlier success on the Fortune “Best Employers” list involved coaxing or bribing its workers to send in glowing survey responses.)
When did it become “extreme” to quit a job and find a better one?
I don’t understand. Do the workers have to choose between being enslaved by their union or their employer?
Seems to me that if we’re going to make policy based on national requirements, then better educational standards (so individuals can develop valuable skills and be able to negotiate with greater power) would be a better approach.
You can make your workers relatively comfortable without having to deal with a union, though. But now I’m curious how you’d respond to an employee or group of employees who demanded a 10% raise if your business has not enjoyed a 10% rise in profitability or efficiency. Can you fire employees who announce that if they don’t get what they want, they’ll strike? Who works for whom in your company?
The difference is ownership.
The owners can, as you say, go off and found another company. BUt that misses the point: the owners OWN the company. The assets of the company belong to them. They have a property interest which we, in law and as a society, recognize as legitimate.
The employees do NOT own the company. Their association with the company is by mutual agreement: provide a service, get paid for it. While I absolutely agree with their right to collectively bargain over what that payment should be, I have to point out the logical flaw in equating “the workers can just quit” to “the owners can just leave.” The workers have no ownership of the company’s assets. The owners do.
There are plenty of things that personal freedom permits that make the country as a whole suffer. When the KKK is permitted to march down the street, the country suffers. When NAMBLA is permitted to distribute pamphlets promoting sex with pre-teen boys, the country suffers. When the Dallas Cowboys are permitted to call themselves “America’s Teram,” the country suffers. But because we respect the idea of personal freedom, we permit these things; the idea being that even though the exercise of this particular freedom is detrimental, the whole concept of personal freedom, on balance, is not.
:dubious: What reality do you live in? Last time I looked, KKK rallies were only dangerous when paired up with socially acceptable racism, which no longer exists as a controlling force over the nation. Thus, the only “harm” a KKK rally causes is that of the harm to the cloth of the marchers, when they get pelted with rotting food. Since that’s all I see at KKK rallies: tens of marchers, and hundreds of anti-march demonstrators.
In any case, please elaborate what harm you see resulting.
I think the KKK being given an opportunity to spread their hateful message is harmful. I accept it because I think curtailing it would produce greater harm.
When anti-march demontrators pelt marchers with rotting food, that’s a harmful situation. It permits the Klan to – with some justification - claim that their opponents are lawless animals.
Since their opponents are not, for the most part, lawless animals, this is an inaccurate and harmful propaganga coup.
:dubious:
If this were true, then you would see a major decline in the standard of living of non-union workers every time the unemployment rate goes up. That doesn’t happen. Wage rollbacks due happen, but it’s always strongly correlated with losses in productivity.
You also underestimate how expensive it is to hire and fire workers. The hiring process itself is expensive, requiring advertisements, interviews, new employee orientation, job training, bookkeeping set up, etc. In addition, new hires are the most unstable employees and more likely to quit or be unsuitable.
The ability of an entire workforce to strike and walk off the job is a very powerful bargaining tool, even if the employer can fire the lot of them and re-hire. It’s devastating to a company to lose an entire work force.
When the company even loses that choice, however, the union gains too much power. When it has the ability to essentially hold the company hostage, it puts the company in the position of being forced to accede to demands, and it also forces the goverment to enter into the issue with arbitration courts, ‘essential service’ laws against striking, and other market-distorting regulations.
I’m always amazed at the picture the left has drawn of corporations as being these evil entities that are always looking to screw over their own employees and pay them as little as possible, because it bears almost no relationship to reality. In point of fact, corporations pay employees pretty much what they are worth. If that’s more than minimum wage, that’s what the employees get. And in fact, the average salary of non-union workers in the U.S. is much higher than minimum wage, and the average non-union worker gets all kinds of employment benefits that are not mandated by law.
There are good reasons for this - competition, and the general recognition that a happy, motivated work force is much more productive than a surly, unhappy work force that is there only because of dire circumstance.
Where you find minimum wage workers these days is essentially in industries that are labor intensive yet make goods that don’t sell for enough money to pay the workers more than minimum wage. The garment industry, for example. If you passed a law that mandated an end to foreign sweatshops and $20/hr for domestic garment workers, what do you think would happen? Would those companies just pony up the bill and take the extra salaries ‘out of profits’?
The answer is no, because compared to the cost of a payroll the profit margins in these industries are very small. The price of the goods would skyrocket, which would lead to a lessening of demand for the product. That would cost jobs. And automation would become more cost-effective, leading to a further loss of jobs. Eventually you’d have a small, highly protected industry of people making expensive garments for the rich, while poor people sew their own clothes more, keep hand-me-downs longer, or wear inferior machine-made garments. In the meantime, the people who aren’t productive enough to keep their jobs at the new mandated wage would be unemployed. Doesn’t sound very ‘progressive’ to me.
I’m guessing Shagnasty was Henry Clay Frick in a past life.
What the hell? Did I just work at the wrong Safeway? I went from $3.35, to $3.40 then to $4.00 (for handling money) while I worked there. The front end manager didn’t make $15 an hour. And I was a member of the Safeway Employees’ Association, which is a company union.
Sounds better than millions of workers slaving for sixteen hours a day behind locked doors for sub-poverty wages, though. If what you’re saying is that the garment industry has been artificially and drastically under-priced by the availability of super-cheap semi-slave labor, and that there would be a painful re-adjustment period if all garment workers were paid a living wage, I won’t disagree. If you’re arguing that therefore it’s wrong to oppose sweatshops, I call bullshit.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
When did it become “extreme” to quit a job and find a better one?
[quote]
it is extreme to assume a large body of workers will all be able to find jobs paying anything close to the union job they are leaving. One or two maybe.
No
You get no argument from me there. Properly fund education and make higher level education available to everyone is a step in the right direction. But reality is there still will need to be more truck drivers than engineers in the world.
If I could do it, I would. It is not in any unions best interest to put the company under, and if management deals with them openly and honest then they dont tend to make unreasonable demands. The cases I’ve seen where unions have refused to cave in situations where the company is in trouble is where they are wanting the workers to take a cut while still paying management outrageous bonuses and salerys. The CEO should be the first one to take a pay cut.
Unions have done a great job. Just look at how they have benefitted the steel, textile, automotive, manufacturing and airline industries. Boy I’m certainly in favor of unions after spending a week taking $20 cab rides because a bunch of freakin monkees want 12% raises.
As usual, **Sam Stone ** is correct. When you distort wages with unions who also block the upgrades necessary to stay competitive, you weaken companies and force jobs overseas. And then the same people bitch and moan that the companies are being unAmerican.
Are you kidding me? Yeah. That’s what we do in business. We crush our employees and make them our slaves. MWUHAHA-HA…HA! My firm was so good at it that over 50% of the group left to go find better jobs. I stayed because they wised up and gave me a huge raise. And we don’t even have a union. Wonder why they did that?