The word “unreasonable” is endlessly flexible, though. If it’s unreasonable for the executives to be making salaries 1000 times the entry-level employees, what ratio is not unreasonable? Imagine a hypothetical smaller company making $1 million a year, which the management openly and honestly discloses. What would be a reasonable demand for the workers to make? Half of that? A tenth? I’d say they can demand anything they want, but I see no obligation on the part of the owner. It may be in his interest to give out raises (over and above government-mandated minimum-wage adjustments, if applicable), since this’ll help reduce turnover, but that is and should always be at the owner’s discretion.
Yes it surely does happen. Its happened to me. I worked for a profitable company that when unemployement rate went up, they layed off workers and made the existing ones (Salary) work 50 hours a week to take up the slack. They did it because they could and knew the workers left on the job wouldn’t quit for fear of being jobless like the rest of his. When they did finally hire people it was for half what they were paying the old guys. Again, they were making money hand over fist…they just saw a way to make more.
Look at our robber baron in residences post. That is exactly what they plan to do to workers who just want to unionize. To say nothing about what demands they are planning to make, they just want to crush the union. IN the real world companies will bear that cost just keep the workers opressed.
I disagree.
Nonsense. Large companies by their very nature will try to wring every dollar out of wherever they can. Its not the left painting it this way, its a fact of life. If times are bad and they can get by paying people min wage no matter what they do to earn it, then they will.
You would think, but no, this is a fantasy. one only has to walk into a wallmart or a sams club and look at the “kill me now” look in the employees eyes to see this. That concept is to hard to get across to the stockholders on why you are paying more than you have to. most ONLY look at the bottom line.
Nor does it have anything to do with reality. If min wage had kept up with inflation it would be what, 10 bucks an hour now? Back in the day you could pay someone 10 bucks an hour to flip burgers and still make a profit. whats changed? An unreasonable expectation for higher profits and unreasonable pay for managment. If you pay the garmet workers more, in your example and take a little less profit then you get to stay in business. Yeah, price of clothes would go up a little but people whould have more money to buy clothes because those people who got a raise would be spending it.
I’m sure it was your sparkling personality.
Sounds to me like you started later, after the agreement to split the union in two. My best friend worked for Safeway in 1980, and he made $14/hr as a boxboy. I remember it well, because I worked down the street at a ‘mom and pop’ grocer, making $4.00/hr for the same work (and working harder, I might add).
Tell that to the workers who line up for a chance at those jobs. $.75/hr may be ‘sweat shop wages’, and sitting on a stool in front of a sewing machine for 12 hours a day in a non-airconditioned factory may be ‘sweat shop conditions’, but it beats the hell out of slaving away 16 hours a day on a hardscrabble plot of land under a baking sun for $900/yr, which is about the average annual wage in the 3rd world.
The problem is the little people in the U.S. make too much money, if every one except the top 5% made $0.75 per hour things would be great. I love it, it’s always the common worker earning too much for their own good. Remember Henry Ford who paid his workers more than the going wage so the people could afford the good he produced?
BTW Bricker, I am surprised by your attitude, perhaps you could remind us what Catholic teaching is regarding the duties of employers to their workers. I believe a living wage is required.
You miss the point entirely Sam Stone
Sure there are people prepared to work for such poverty wages, but have you noticed the cost of sportswear falling lately ?
This is the point, companies such as Nike(who are not the worst offender and are regarded as better than most) manufacture items of clothing at incredibly low wages, and sell on to western consumers with a mark up of thousands of percent.
There is a great opportunity here to pay reasonable wages and actually help stimulate a consumer economy, lifting these people out of poverty, and showing them that western values have great merit, I don’t imagine too many of those workers at $.75 per hour are purchasing all that many western produced goods.
The most distasteful thing, or at least one very distasteful one, is the sight of multi-millionaire sportspersons being paid a fortune just to wear this stuff, because this is literally made out of the sweat of minors often living in apalling conditions.
This is a classic example of what unregulated industry can do, its exported poverty as this is not acceptable in most 1st world nations, and out of sight is out of mind.
When the UK was enacting welfare laws largely back in the 19thC one argument that was used, especially in agriculture(which effectively deprived children of an education) was that the parents of working children needed the income to support their families and loss of it would lead to poverty.
Its an argument that is being made indirectly here, that paying 3rd world employees poverty wages is better than nothing at all, but denies the fact that indentured labour of the sort commonly used actually perpetuates poverty, and the profit that these companies make should surely be divided a little more equitably between those who own the comapanies and the shopfloor workforce.
Never forget that workers are also a potential market too, pay them little and the economy goes downhill, you only have to look at the markets when consumer confidence takes a knock to understand this, the money has to be put into the hands of the consumer in order to generate growth and unjustly low wages is one way to ensure a lcak of this vital confidence.
Secure employees who are largely satisfied with their lot do not tend to organise all that much, and this is one of the reasons in the UK that the Unions have so much trouble recruiting, they are not seen as relevant as they were since the state has enacted legislation that regulates industrial relations and protects employees from blatently unfair practices.
Things like having the company rules set out in company employment policy helps.
If you want fewer unions, then you must look at the reasons they exist and provide for some legal framework that makes the necessity of their primary role less relevant, things such as third party arbitration, employment tribunals, boards established to look into unfair dismissals and a strong health and safety legislature.
Most cases in the UK brought to employment tribunals actually find in favour of the employer, but at least there is an independant examination, very many more cases never get as far as a tribunal and are settled without such recourse.
It does mean that both employers and employed have to recognise and trust the independance of such tribunals and accept any findings, but with the hire 'em and fire 'em policly that the lower end employers in the US have, trust is not likely to be forthcoming, hence the tide of seemingly frivolous lawsuits.
** Shagnasty** is typical of the autocratic incompetant, he simply does not have the vision to see how employment could be, with or without unions, he sees only the blindingly obvious, without caring himself to look at the root causes, the result is that employment terms are hostile, both sides are in the trenches, cooperation is not part of the landscape and abuses by both sides will occur whenever the balance of power shift in any particular direction.
No, my opposition to unions is more philosophical and straightforward than that. I don’t see the distinction between “employees” and other types of service providers. I work at my place of employment full-time and yet they are my “client”. It is up to me keep me my skills relevant. Even if I do, they may simply run out of projects and I could still be let go. I would never want someone to keep me for any other reason than that they had work that I am a good resource to provide. It just so happens that certain businesses need someones services full-time or near full-time. If you need a plumber, you may call a plumbing service to help. If a business needs a plumber very often, they may desire to retain a plumber’s services full-time. I don’t see a real difference there. When the plumbing work is done, the plumber should find a new client.
I don’t know where all of this simultaneous desire for and hatred of paternalism is coming from. Each person is a set of skills out on the open market. Sometimes, people don’t like the price tag attached but that is just a wake-up call to adapt. Humans are remarkably adaptable when they need to be and that is best for everyone in the long-run.
Let’s put some facts behind this, shall we?
In FY04, Nike employed 550,000 workers in the Asia-Pacific region.
That labor generated total revenues of 1.6 billion dollars, for a total revenue of $2606 per worker. That’s revenue, mind you - not profit.
Cite.
So where’s the money coming from?
So it’s ‘distasteful’ to you, and that’s a basis for policy? Let’s see, if Tiger woods didn’t get his $10 million, they could give every worker about 20 bucks. But of course, without effective marketing, revenues drop, profit margins drop, and that 20 bucks doesn’t exist. Because Nike isn’t going to pay Tiger his money unless it thinks it will make them more profitable.
It matters not one bit to you that these sweatshops generally represent a much better standard of living than anything else available to those people, huh? Do you know how in-demand those jobs are?
If we ban them, what’s the alternative? How are these countries ever supposed to build the infrastructure they need to climb out of 3rd world status? Do you honestly think the answer is to prevent companies like Nike from investing in these countries? Or do you want them to invest, but somehow magically pay these workers a 1st world salary? Or what? What is your specific policy recommendation here?
Widespread child labor in England ended all on its own, without any laws being necessary. This may surprise you, but parents actually don’t want their children working hard labor. Once families could afford to put their kids in school, they did so. As I recall, the child labor laws only managed to stop one practice, which was chimney sweep.
As I’ve already pointed out, in the case of Nike there’s no more money to be handed out. If they make a couple of hundred million dollars a year in profit, that only represents about $400 per employee. And if that money went to the employees, there would be no reason for the jobs to exist.
I hope you’ll remember that the next time you argue against Wal-Mart, because the people who work at Wal-Mart are the same who shop there, and would be the ones hurt if Wal-Mart went under.
And I think you over-estimate the demand for Nike running shoes in Bangladesh.
Ah. So the fact that non-union workers are happy enough to not want to organize is because the state protects them, huh? Would it then be your assertion that the companies that hire these people only meet minimum governmental standards for wages and working conditions?
Uh, yeah.
Who says I want fewer unions? I don’t care how many unions there are, so long as they have to operate within the same laws as the rest of us and don’t enjoy special protection from the government.
But I thought unions are always right, and always consider the best interests of the employer as well as the employee?
This seems like an enormous leap to make without some numbers to back it up. For your average set of clothes (say, a business casual outfit), what percentage of the overall cost is due to labor costs of those who assemble the clothes (as opposed to materials, transportation, retail overhead, profit for the multiple companies that will contribute to the clothes, the salaries of the people who design the clothes, etc.)? I don’t think it’s as obvious as you imply that raising garment industry wages would increase clothing prices to the point that our way of life is fundamentally changed.
So rather then just jumping from “increasing the wage of garment workers to $20/hour” to ‘only the rich wear commercial clothing and the poor sew their own’ (paraphrased; my words), let’s see a more rigourous analysis, Sam.
Nevermind, Sam. After reading some more of your replies in this thread, I don’t want to debate you. Please ignore my post.
Well, I just provided some. In the case of Nike in FY04, their ‘sweat shop’ labor in the Asia-Pacific region generated a total revenue of $2600 per worker. Assuming a 10% profit, that’s a profit of $260 per worker per year. You tell me where the room is to improve worker salaries?
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that a guy like me, who at 17, was only making $2.35 per hour at a liquor store in La Verne, CA, took a job at 19 working for Price Club as a dues paying Teamster forklift operator, who then moved on to become a business owner at 28 (with the wife), running day programs for the developmentally disabled. I love this country!
I want to thank my uncle, who owned the liquor store for employing me so I can have spending money in college. I thank the shareholders, managers and Teamsters for giving me the opportunity to earn enough money to finish my college education, put enough money down on my first house and for getting enough money scraped up to start my own business. I also would like to specially thank the Teamsters for showing me that excellence in mediocrity has its own ceiling which gave me the incentive to better myself and my family by starting our own business. I would also like to thank my dad for loaning me $5K with 7% interest to help us in our first 18 months of providing payroll to my employees while I still worked at Price Club to keep us afloat. I would like to thank the state of California for freezing reimbursement levels (our income) since we started in 1992, with the exception of 10% (directly passed to my employees…not us) back in 2000…it forced me to find ways to run more efficiently and toughen us up for lean times. I want to thank my wife for the drive and her knowledge of Title 17 and 22 of the CA regulations, so we can operate in a legal, safe and purposeful manner. She also gets credit for the same work ethic as me.
But, most of all, I would like to thank myself…for realizing that minimum wage won’t cut it; and that unions are a double-edge sword that rewards slackers just as much as the hard workers; Shareholders of companies (whether its by stocks or direct ownership) are regarded as the ultimate interest of the company…not the employees, not the managers, nor the customers. I also thank myself for the will and determination to become my own employer and shareholder. Also, my calculated risk-taking also deserves a pat on the back since I didn’t want to become another casualty of small business failures in this country, which is quite large due to lack of anything mentioned above.
I value my employees, but I see them for who they are…employees. Some employees who are content just working for me, some who go to college, some who start their own businesses, and some who are never happy no matter what is paid (but refuse to improve on their own skills to improve their own quality of life). I treat them all fairly to the point that only two unhappy employees (in the whole 13+ years that I have operated the business) ever muttered something about unionizing, which was more akin to lamenting about their personal failures and debts at home rather than the wages and benefits paid here.
The lesson I learned over the years? Today’s unions are for the mediocre, uninspired, and the unwillings to improve…en masse. They want more increases (some warranted, some not) for the same amount of productivity, regardless of the companies financial condition. Fortunately, I am in short supply of those type of folks working for me. And if they do come my way, I find ways to get them going in the right direction…if they are willing, otherwise they end up leaving on their own accord.
I remember a conversation with an employee (getting his first raise after one year of service) back in 1997 who was frustrated with his current (at that time) financial condition and was angry at me for not paying him enough (in his eyes):
John Doe: Only 4% raise! That’s not enough!
Me: Well, you only get a 0-5% merit raise annually for the first five years (John knew this from the date of hire). After that, if any COLAs getted passed down by the state (remember the one that came later in 2000), I will pass on to you as well as other employees.
John Doe: That’s not enough! I have credit card debts that I’ve been paying for years!
Me: I can sympathize with you John, I still have yet to dig out of my debts here with the company.
John Doe: But my personal goal was to have a Mercedes by the time I was 40…
Me: Uh, John…If you don’t see me driving a Mercedes, what makes you think that you’re gonna be driving one? (I had a '92 Pontiac Sunbird at the time)
John Doe: 
:eek: 
:smack:
Me: John, I think you need to evaluate your personal skills, interests and find something that pays better if you’re capable of improving on them.
John Doe: Uh…yeah…ok.
Three months later, he got a job as security guard at a medium security prison in Central California. He thanked me for opening up his eyes.
I guess what I am trying to say after all this, is that I now would not, could not, and will not rely on any unions or any other employer for my best interests…I rely on ourselves and the employees who I treat fairly to the best of my ability. Control your own destiny. Bitching about it just means that you have not made the most of your talent, brains, or hard work.
Sorry, simulpost. Feel free to ignore my last message if you don’t want to debate it.
Advocated…Yes.
Required…No.
You do what you can. At least that’s what I was taught.
If Wal-Mart is the best place to work, I’d hate to see what the worst was like.
:dubious:
You can’t be serious. Honestly for someone who makes all these grand arguments about economics you are pretty shitty at interpeting data. That 1.6 billion dollars you cite is the revenues from sales in Asia not whats produced there. Dividing that number by employee is meaningless becuase most of the stuff produced in Asia is exported.
I also find it interesting how you completely ignored the refutation of WalMart beign a top 100 place to work.
Except most people cant adapt. People who dont have the kind of safety net you do cant take risks and go out compete on the open market and go to college an learn new skill sets because they have familys to support and every dime they make goes towards that…nothing left for school or taking risks. Its that kind of “let them eat cake” statement that shows why we have to have unions.
Your statement earlier (I believe it was you, if not I apologize) that socialism didnt build the world we live in. Nonsense. Public schools are a form of socialism. Police, fire, librarys, water treatment…all socialist entities and all a big part of this world we live in and what has made this country great. It was through the efforts of unions that standards of living were raised and through that our country grew to what it is today. If we were still stuck in the mindset you have we would be a third world entity long ago. We would have a few wealthy and educated and a majority of poverty stricken and illiterate.
Its easy for you to talk a big game about fending for yourself on the open market…if everything went south tomorrow, would your wifes family let you live under a bridge, or would they front you the money to get by till you trained in something else? You arent risking anything.
In the past few years I have met so many good, hard working, intelligent and even well educated people who have had their lives destroyed by corporate greed. I’m sick of it. If it takes more laws, or unions, or outright government control it needs to stop.
And anyone who would fire their employees just to keep them from forming a union is less than human. They deserve to lose everything they have.
You don’t think I was born an IT Business Systems Consultant do you? My college degree is in Behavioral Neuroscience. I went into a Ph.D. at Dartmouth in Behavioral Science where I endured the worst abuse I ever have at the hand of my mentor and research adviser. At the end of a particularly viscous fight, I left with no money and no where to go. I drove to Boston because that was the closest city and I figured I could come up with something.
Long story short, I ended up staying in a room that belonged to an older woman because it was the cheapest I could find. I called temp agencies and had a job the next day. I literally bought a $2.50 chinese special and had it for lunch and dinner (no breakfast). I did well at my temp job and they kept me on for 6 months and helped me look for work. I got my first “real” job right at the end of the six months by cobbling together all the skills that I had and studying on my own. I din’t marry my wife until years later.
Since then: one employer sold, 2 layoffs, and a string of contract jobs that never guarantee anything but tend to be fast-paced and rather exciting. I tend to enjoy that type of thing very much.
You can get good at anything including getting good at new things. Most people just aren’t bold enough and it probably holds many of them back.
Why thank you? I never thought of myself as a pure model of what I advocate but I guess I am.
That was me but its seems to be stretching the definition of “socialist” well past its typical silly putty guarantee. I have never heard of an quaint American town circa 1950 described as “socialist”. Perhaps that should be left to another debate. My point was simple. Leftists just love to point to little pockets of socialism I was just pointing out the startling correlation between the most free markets and innovation. Practically everything technology we attribute to modern technology was created by strong capitalists, not workers singing away in a socialist utopia. If you want socialism, you have to have someone out there doing the work and innovation else you can’t have new technologies from pharmaceuticals to communications satellites.
One problem has been that a number of companies made agreements for services that they are now choosing to abandon. They have decided that it was fair to offer one set of rewards to encourage people to work for them and entice them to not continually sell their services to higher bidders, and now that payment is due the companies want to reneg on the deal.
Goodyear is doing that right now. They are going through the ranks of professionals who were hired with an expectation of a certain recompense as offered by the company, both at the time of service and after the service had been completed, and are simply “redefining” jobs to fire workers who are within a year or so of having put in the required time. These are not jobs that are being eliminated because of hard economic times; while the older employees’ jobs are eliminated, newer positions with the same responsibilities at lower pay scales are being defined simultaneously.
Not all companies do this, of course, but there are certainly enough companies that do so to justify the views of unions that companies cannot be trusted.