So I've lived in California my entire life. We have a few unions here, mostly related to construction and food service jobs. I've never been in one.
What EXACTLY is their current purpose?
People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.
I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).
So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?
I get that back in the day unions negotiated better terms.
From what I can tell, a lot of those terms are now laws, such as any company over X employees in size must offer healthcare to it's full time employees, minimum break times, etc.
Today the benefits can still be more sick days, more vacation days, fair ways do to promotions, better pay, protection from wrongful termination, etc. There is lots of good stuff that is done today by many unions. There is also lots of useless unions.
It really varies from union to union, and within each union from local to local, it also depends on state laws that strip unions of powers/give workers more rights (depending on your ideological stance).
I think "sell me on unions" is a pretty lofty goal and is probably something that nobody should try to do.
"Sell me on joining my local" would be a more practical question. Look at your field, the business you are working for, compare it to non-union shops as well as other union shops to see how your local is run. Investigate what your local has done and what benefits the union gives you.
It's a pretty complicated question. You will get the "unions are awesome" and "unions are the devil" answers here, but it's just Internet ranting unless you check out and investigate your local.
I have my own opinions on unions, with many personal anecdotes, but d has it right. Investigate the locals and look into educational sites with no axe to grind on the subject.
Relapse wrote: I have my own opinions on unions, with many personal anecdotes, but d has it right. Investigate the locals and look into educational sites with no axe to grind on the subject.
I'm generally pro-union, but I have worked in places with unions that I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole!
People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.
Because in lots of cases people aren't naturally free to pick and choose jobs as they please. If you're trained in working a drilling machine that's used only in coal mines, then you're pretty committed to working for the only coal mining company in your town. Retraining in some other job, or moving your family to another town in the hope that you'll get work in another coal mine isn't practical.
There's also the issue that while your employer has HR specialists who know all about the job market and what pay and benefits are reasonable for the job, the employer might have no idea. In that case it makes sense to use a service that has that information and will be on your side.
For these reasons and others collective bargaining is often preferred to employees just bargaining on their own behalf.
I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).
That is a significant problem. A lot of people will point to the rise of professional managment in unions as the start of the decline of the movement. I think that's way too simplistic, but it's certainly an issue.
So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?
Honestly, the major reason they are around is that those conditions I described above used to not occur sometimes, but instead were the dominant market conditions. Going back to pre-war period and in to the inter-war period you had a lot of manifestly unfair working conditions, and these were eventually resolved through concerted union action. That kind of thing tends to carry on through history, even when the original reason has faded away. That's actually my biggest issue with unions. Instead of looking to move on to new areas of exploited workers, like retail, instead they've largely contented themselves with continuing to protect industries where the pay and conditions are actually pretty good (like auto manufacture).
I mean, right now here in Australia there's threats of strike by miners, where the average rate of pay exceeds $150k. Once you earn 2.5 times the average rate of pay your claim that you need to strike to avoid being exploited starts looking pretty silly.
If we allow people to collectively organize into corporations that buy labor, why would we not allow people to collectively organize into unions that sell labor?
I understand the importance for a union for people who are specialists. For instance, teacher's associations. Because those people need the ability to negotiate new wages and benefits within their work structure. Teaching isn't really a field with dynamic competition, and unlike other workers who can threaten to quit and work in another field, teachers have invested their education into a narrower niche. Similarly you have the pipe-fitters union, electrical workers, steel workers, nurses, policemen, all fields where you need to develop expertise through years of schooling/experience that don't easily transfer to other fields. The union is there to make sure that the federal/state/local government, corporation, or organization doesn't take advantage of these workers.
I don't really understand the functionality of a union for unskilled labor. Unskilled labor jobs are available everywhere and wages are easily settled competitively. It's hard for a teacher to walk away from teaching, but it's easy for a bus driver to walk away from bus driving. To my mind, a union for unskilled laborers drives up wages and reduces employment, preventing the hiring of people outside the union.
TLDR: unions representing specialist labor is important. Unions representing unskilled labor drive up wages and price out other workers.
d-usa wrote: Today the benefits can still be more sick days, more vacation days, fair ways do to promotions, better pay, protection from wrongful termination, etc. There is lots of good stuff that is done today by many unions.
A lot of the good union work is done in health and safety, and informing employees of their rights and providing legal services when something goes wrong (wrongful dismissal or a workplace injury, for instance).
It really varies from union to union
Yeah, it really, really does. Unions that keep their fees low, that generally rely on volunteers who work in the industry and union professionals, and focus not on taking the fight to management but instead working with management to produce best practice and productivity increases, while offering services to employees like legal advice and decent insurance are great unions. Terrible unions are, you know, the opposite of that. And both kinds are pretty common.
d-usa wrote: Today the benefits can still be ... protection from wrongful termination, etc.
I can offer a personal account of this, if it would help illustrate the point Aerethan. When I worked at Kroger, (in the deli) I broke my arm. After getting it in a cast, our store manager told me that she was sorry, but she'd have to let me go (since it wouldn't be sanitary to let me work around food). Fortunately, before I left, another employee stopped me and told me I needed to go talk to our union rep. She put in a few calls to verify that this sort of issue had been hashed out in the past, and then contacted the manager to remind her that, no, she could not fire me for this reason, and that this exact issue had been negotiated in the past.
While I didn't wind up getting paid time off or anything, I still had a job waiting for me when I got the cast off. If it had been the same lady managing a Wal-Mart, then I'd have been unemployed.
It really varies from union to union
Oh good lord, this. So much this. Even locally, you can find some unions that are generally fair, don't take advantage of their influence, and operate as intended. You also find some that use their power as mob-style leverage to force businesses to pay higher costs for poorer work, or some that operate simply as tools of the management to continue exploitive practices with their workers while maintaining a public facade of being sympathetic to the plight of the working man. It seriously varies not only from union to union, but from local to local.
I've a buddy who works as an electrician, and at his local office they keep guys in work on a rotational basis. As many of the union's jobs are construction sites and whatnot the work tends to be somewhat limited....
From what he was telling me, once a job is completed, you go back on the "needs work" list with a sort of points system. Guys who haven't worked longer are at/near the top... But priority starts to break down a bit in that guys who are married and have kids are given higher priority than single guys, unless the time of not having work is over a certain amount of time.
So let me pose another scenario which I heard from a friend of mine who runs a lighting company(think concerts and such).
He was hired by GM(the car company) for a ~$4500 rental for basic stage needs for some trade show which was held at a convention center which had it's own union workforce. He was told he could unload his gear but once it got to the convention floor ONLY union workers were allowed to move it to the display area, then he could set it up. This was roughly 100' in distance.
A few days after the show, GM called him wondering why the got a bill for somewhere around $200k in union labor charges. He told them they had to work it out with the convention center and never heard back.
So how on earth is a union worth paying for labor if the amount they charge is astronomical, yet you have no other options? It sounds like the same kind of monopoly that ISPs have in most areas where you can't pick a different brand if you don't like the service you receive.
I'm not saying GM can't afford it, but honestly 200k to move a $4500 rental is ridiculous.
Ahtman wrote: I want to make a thread titled "Sell Me On Onions" now for some reason.
The Onion was the first thing i thought off.
Unions are useless, let's go back to 12 hours workdays, Company stores, working on Saturdays, no Holidays, Can lose your job on a whim, all possible without Unions!
Are you saying that unions have a historical role that you believe may no longer be necessary?
Presumably by asking what the *current* purpose of a union is, you understand what unions have done in the past?
The historical need for unions has basically passed. Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.
If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.
They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.
If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.
That doesn't mean that they should go away. The basic concept is a good one and they should be there. But thats all they should be, there for when they actually are needed. Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.
Are you saying that unions have a historical role that you believe may no longer be necessary?
Presumably by asking what the *current* purpose of a union is, you understand what unions have done in the past?
The historical need for unions has basically passed. Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.
If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.
They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.
If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.
That doesn't mean that they should go away. The basic concept is a good one and they should be there. But thats all they should be, there for when they actually are needed. Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.
This is basically the view most people I know personally share, which is why I made the thread.
The strike issue is a good one. Plenty of people can't afford to go on strike. Is the union paying those members during these periods? Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?
Pretty much. And nope, nobody gets paid unless you're willing to pay us extra! And during the meantime the company just hires some freelancers who are willing to get paid less than Union wages.
And don't even think about crossing the line. Some unions are basically their own mafia.
Grey Templar wrote: Most modern strikes are done over rather superfluous things which wouldn't have made anyone bat an eyelash at when unions first formed.
When unions were formed, horrifying accidents, such as a worker falling into machinery and being rendered into lard were fairly common, so that's maybe not the best example yes? Our society has evolved since then so the fact that the bar for which workers are willing to strike has moved with it is neither shocking nor unexpected.
Aerethan wrote: Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?
From your previous 2 posts I am beginning to suspect when you said "sell me on unions" what you meant was "please reinforce my preconceptions about unions".
Thats exactly my point. Unions were to protect workers from dangerously unsafe environments and abusive salaries. Neither of which really exists any more.
Changing the criteria for a strike is not unexpected, but the extent to which it has changed is nothing short of silly.
Yeah, the need for unions went away when we stopped having exploited workers and industries with dangerous working conditions.
Oh, wait.
Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.
Many unions are. But that doesn't mean that all unions are like that, nor does it mean that there isn't a need for increased union presence in industries where there is worker exploitation.
They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.
That depends on the union, and the industry.
If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.
That depends on the union, and the industry. As a blanket statement it's just really terrible advice.
sebster wrote: Collective bargaining is often preferred to employees just bargaining on their own behalf.
This sums it up for me. There tends to be a lot of competition for jobs, and there is always going to be some poor immigrant who is willing to live in one small room, sharing with eight other people; and work 20 hour days, breathing carcinogens, for a fraction of what you'd call 'fair wages'. You can't compete with someone like that, and frankly, you don't want to. But so long as he exists to undercut you, you have zero leverage to negotiate better wages or conditions on your own.
Unions probably do eventually evolve into grotesque ugly monsters, corrupt to their greedy foundations... But that's kind of what you need when you're facing off against grotesque ugly monsters, corrupt to their greedy foundations (I.e. corporations). At least it's fair.
Not really. There are still unfair labor practices, dangerous working conditions, and unscrupulous business owners driven more by profit than compassion. If those things were to cease to exist, you would have an argument. But they haven't and you don't.
Now they're largely bloated organizations which are no better than what they are supposedly there to protect you from, and in many ways they are worse.
The case could be made for that to apply to the handful of "large" unions in America, but the is only a handful of all the workers represented by unions. On top of that, union membership is currently lower than it ever has been.
If you aren't a senior member you are going to have very little protection and a lot of fees.
Nope. That is the classic stereotype; not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is most definitely the not standard operating procedure.
They can basically force you to go on strike, even if you individually don't want to.
Strikes are rare. Very rare. Most modern unions have varying degrees of no-strike clauses in their CBA to prevent them from going on strike for superfluous reasons. Also, for a union to go on strike, the body (i.e.- the members) has to vote to authorize it; the business manager doesn't just decide to call a strike one day "just because." Also, you don't join a union to have your voice heard, you join to have a collective voice heard. It is similar to how the country works: we don't get to vote for every single law that comes up in Congress, the people we choose do that for us.
If you are a younger worker, stay the heck away from them.
Aerethan wrote: Or are people supposed to ALL stop working because Larry can't afford his daughters braces?
From your previous 2 posts I am beginning to suspect when you said "sell me on unions" what you meant was "please reinforce my preconceptions about unions".
If you want to see just how useless & catastrophically bad for the whole Unions have become, just take a peak at Ontario and how the public sector unions have all but destroyed our province's economy, while also controlling the ruling government through backscratching and illegal attack ad campaigns aimed at political opponents.
11 years of abuse and these ****ing Liberal bums are still around, despite 2 on-going police investigations into corruption & misuse of taxpayers money!
And it's all because of big public sector unions propping them up in order to keep their extravagant perks.
Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".
Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.
The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.
If republicans would rather support corporations instead of organized groups of workers working to secure a fair work environment A.K.A a union, I ask them to walk the walk as well. Give up every benefit and right that you use that unions are responsible for.
Complete trust and submit yourself to the corporate agenda you fight for. Play by their rules with no influence from democrats or labor unions to try to force rights among the workers of this country. Dedicate your life to their life goal of making your company more money than the year before. Just understand that this may mean sacrificing the union fought rights you enjoy everyday. I mean, you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you? Like bashing unions on your union fought lunch break? Which means if you practice what you preach, you don't get a lunch break.
Corporations use to work employees 80+ hours a week, offer no breaks, hire children, offer horrid, unsanitary work conditions, paid literally next to nothing, and even murder. Not murder with a pen like they do today, but actual murder. They basically did whatever they wanted.
This is what they were like before unions. Don't take my word for it, look it up. (Links at bottom of page). If we rid the world of unions tomorrow, who is to say that they won't go right back to the way they were merely 70 years ago? The GOP governor of Maine signed a bill to repeal child labor laws this year, maybe they are going back to their roots whether we have unions or not.
So conservatives, please practice what you preach and give up all these rights and leave the umbrella of these laws for they were brought to you by unions...
36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union
•Weekends
•All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
•Paid Vacation
•FMLA
•Sick Leave
•Social Security
•Minimum Wage
•Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
•8-Hour Work Day
•Overtime Pay
•Child Labor Laws
•Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
•40 Hour Work Week
•Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
•Unemployment Insurance
•Pensions
•Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
•Employer Health Care Insurance
•Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
•Wrongful Termination Laws
•Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
•Whistleblower Protection Laws
•Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
•Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
•Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
•Sexual Harassment Laws
•Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
•Holiday Pay
•Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
•Privacy Rights
•Pregnancy and Parental Leave
•Military Leave
•The Right to Strike
•Public Education for Children
•Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
•Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
So will conservatives give up all 36 of these union fought rights? Will they stand by their rhetoric that unions are thugs and refuse to take benefits from these "thugs" or will they hypocritically carry on the diatribe that unions are ruining this country while enjoying their weekends and paid vacations?
Or...
Maybe they could just admit that while not perfect, like anything else, unions have done great things for working people that they use and benefit from everyday of their lives?
Maybe a conservative union-hating family got to have some of the best moments of their lives while on vacation from work, and they still got to come to a job still there waiting for them, because of unions?
Maybe a conservative can't wait for their lunch break at work so they can turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back talk about how horrible unions are?
If you don't want to give up all your union fought rights and benefits at work, I understand. I don't want to either, that's why I'm pro-union and vote Democrat.
But maybe you could just admit that unions are not demons spawned from hell, and admit the FACT that they have improved your life in more ways than one?
Or am I asking too much?
Taken from this site ....http://la.aflcio.org/gnoaflcio/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=257e8c90-0ac8-43f7-b0c6-dce69756e21c
Educate yourself about it. Unions are not perfect but they are a necessary evil.
Well union workers really screwed themselves over around here. A metal works didn't give enough vacation and they thought they had a narrow market so wanted more money. They protested and then went on strike, the business hired scabs to work til the current orders where filled, then closed down the plant and moved across the country.
Now all those workers "9 years later" still have signs all around the old building complaining about how they where robbed of a job and the government should pay them til the age of retirement and should sue the company and all this crap.
Unions are for the most part a collective "b#@$" fest" about people complaining and threatening a business unless there demands are met. Basically legal unarmed terrorist's. But they do some good thigns like the wrongful termination thing which can be brough upto the gov level now a days anyways so ya.
Not entirely true here.... Henry Ford started these things, or at least the ground work for them, on his own. He was one of the few "robber barons" of that age who did genuinely have a concern for his work force.
So while yeah, unions certainly fought for some of the working conditions that many people "enjoy" today, they didn't start or get some of them. I'm sure that with a little bit more digging, I could find examples of an individual company doing something for its workers before unions did. What that usually means is that, Henry Ford started giving his workers decent work times, a standard work week, etc. And the guys over at Chrysler or Chevrolet who DIDNT get that, wanted that same treatment as they did the same work. They ultimately had to unionize in order to get onto "equal terms" with workers from a competing car company.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Like everything else there are great unions, and there are unions that are a money sink. Do some investigation to see if your union is right for you.
Also look into the frequency of the union to strike and what your pay will be during said strike.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Henry Ford started these things, or at least the ground work for them, on his own. He was one of the few "robber barons" of that age who did genuinely have a concern for his work force.
Or, or more accurately, his concern was his utter inability to retain them until he was willing to give them concessions. There wasn't any altruism there.
Also, I came off as pretty pro union in this thread, but in my own experience, every union I belonged to kinda sucked hard. That being said, I know there are unions out there that don't: my Dad belonged to a painters union, and after he died they took care of us. My wife was a postal worker, and her union was generally OK. I mean, asking if unions are good is like asking if fast food tastes good - there's a pretty big umbrella there, it's just un-answerable until you get very specific.
Unions are for the most part a collective "b#@$" fest" about people complaining and threatening a business unless there demands are met. Basically legal unarmed terrorist's.
To be fair, the same could be said about businesses.
Corporations are for the most part a collective "b#@$" fest" about people complaining and threatening workers and government unless their demands are met. Basically legal unarmed terrorist's. If they don't get what they want they scream about taking their jobs to another country.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Like everything else there are great unions, and there are unions that are a money sink. Do some investigation to see if your union is right for you.
Also look into the frequency of the union to strike and what your pay will be during said strike.
Good point, thank you. The only union I ever joined (not exactly a great statistical sample) had some great members, but many of them - especially those in charge - were useless and more concerned about their own power. Things that we should have taken industrial action on were not acted on, too cozy a relationship with management, inability to communicate with the people who paid their dues, political infighting, temper tantrums, letting issues drag on for far too long, etc.
I have been doing Ironwork for over ten years and we have never had a strike. If we were to strike I would just 'boom out' to another local and go to work there until the strike was over. The main thing to remember about unions are, in my opinion, that they are not perfect and have flaws ... but you have more rights being in a union than you do without one.
I will grant that some companies operate union free, either because they actually do take care of the people in their employ, as General Electric does (they are primarily non-union but if they buy a company that is union, the union stays in place), or Walmart that is nonunion and uses bully tactics and coercion to stay nonunion.
I will grant that some companies operate union free, either because they actually do take care of the people in their employ, as General Electric does (they are primarily non-union but if they buy a company that is union, the union stays in place), or Walmart that is nonunion and uses bully tactics and coercion to stay nonunion.
I would imagine that a union, even a good one, can be a pain in the rear. And sometimes even the threat of a union can push a company to give union-type benefits to workers just to avoid having to deal with an actual union.
Grey Templar wrote:Thats exactly my point. Unions were to protect workers from dangerously unsafe environments and abusive salaries. Neither of which really exists any more.
Walmart, one of the most anti-union employers out there, pays their full-time employees so little that roughly half of them qualify for food stamps. Saying abusive salaries no longer exist is really ignorant.
Unions are a positive force in a weak job market, like we've had in the US for the last decade, and for unskilled and low-skill jobs. Pretty much anyone can put a box on a shelf, and with the high unemployment numbers we have, that means a place like Walmart can pay below-living wages to fill this role. Short of government intervention (in the form of a minimum wage), unionizing is the way that employees have of combating this. Rather than operate 'every man for himself', they tell the company that, as a group, they won't work without reasonable pay. As long as the majority of workers are in the union, this works. But as soon as you enough people willing to work for less than the union is asking, the union loses any power it had in the bargaining.
This leads to a number of contentious issues;
- Unions like to be able to have mandatory union jobs. Many grocery store workers in the Chicago area operate this way. When I was in high school, I had a summer job as a bagger. As a summer job, I was only there for a few months. The grocery workers union had a rule that said anyone who worked there for more than three months would have payroll deductions in the form of union dues, whether you wanted to join the union or not. This protected the workers in the union from facing the situation where too many workers weren't in the union, as everyone was de-facto in the union. But, as a high school student, and not making bagging my living, I was none-to-thrilled about this deduction, so I left after the three summer months were up.
- In "Right to Work" states, the concept is the opposite. Corporations have pressured the government into disallowing mandatory union fees, like mentioned above. The "Right to Work" means you're free to work for yourself, without union dues. This necessarily weakens unions, as some people will opt out of the union to save the monthly fees. When union membership drops below staffing needs, the union has no power. Salaries in "Right to Work" are an average of 6.5% lower than in states without these laws. (http://www.epi.org/publication/datazone_rtw_index/)
- "Right to Work" proponents say that this pro-business approach helps attract business to their state. The south's manufacturing base (many import cars are made in the south) is Right-to-Work. The workers make less than the American car manufacturers in Michigan, but have many fewer job protections and lower individual wages.
- Union rules can prevent businesses from adjusting with the times, and end up killing the industries that the workers work for, and can lead to stupid situations where the union has created positions that don't need to exist. Some examples of this:
-- A co-worker of mine previously wrote software for a company that operated a railroad. One of the tasks that needed to be done was data from one place had to be transferred to another place. The company was modernizing, so my friend was hired to create a software bridge between the two systems, where this data would just be transferred. But, the union rules stated that the job of copying the data was protected, so the software ended up generating a dialog, allowing the user to type the numbers from system1 into system2, and then discarding that input to eliminate human error and copying the info over internally anyway.
-- The building I work in, in Chicago, is a union building. I am not allowed to fix a hinge on a cabinet in our lunchroom, because building maintenance in a union job. Even though this would take me 10 seconds to tighten a screw.
It's not a black&white question. Unions clearly benefit workers - the wage comparisons prove this. And unions are responsible for a lot of workplace reforms that we take for granted. But, unions, with guaranteed dues, can also foster corruption. They can stagnate industries and prevent corporations from adjusting to market trends. And, when Right to Work states compete with pro-Union states to attract new jobs, unions can lead to higher unemployment.
Eating onions boosts your appetite and prevents atherosclerosis.
Onions extracts provide cures for cough, cold, bronchitis, as well as asthma.
Onions can cause a marked reduction in bronchial spasms.
Onion consumption reduces chances of colon cancer, stimulated growth of benevolent bifidobacteria and inhibits growth of potentially harmful bacteria in the abdominal tract
An interesting nutrition fact about onions is that the sulfides contained in them can lower blood lipid levels and reduce blood pressure.
Onions also prevent blood clotting and platelet clumping.
They are also tasty and versatile, a nutritious addition to a wide variety of dishes.
unions are great, they take 50$ off your check, but you get more job security and barganing power.
generally your benifits and working conditions will be better as well.
depends on the union though, where I am they are good... farther east, there is a lot of corruption, politicking, and organized crime that makes up a substantial part of unions.
same could be said of governments though, except they dont do as much as unions to help out workers
Unions serve a purpose for when the employers of labor hold an unfair advantage over the employees or the means of labor when acting individually. This is most evident in harsh economic times, where individual employees cannot make valid complaints or raise issues without threat of the loss of their means of sustaining themselves. When acting as one, as in a Union, labor is then able to match the employer on more "accurate" economic terms relative to their true strength.
That said, in Unions, just like Employers, can often exert more power than they should and can fall prey to the same problems the other has. We can and have ended up with Unions that essentially only serve the "first ins" and screw over many others, particularly the newest and youngest workers.
Unions serve a real and legitimate purpose in some areas, but like anything else can "fail".
Grey Templar wrote:Thats exactly my point. Unions were to protect workers from dangerously unsafe environments and abusive salaries. Neither of which really exists any more.
Walmart, one of the most anti-union employers out there, pays their full-time employees so little that roughly half of them qualify for food stamps. Saying abusive salaries no longer exist is really ignorant.
That might be true, if the jobs actually were worth more than those so called "abusive" salaries.
Its not an abusive salary if you are being paid exactly what the job is worth. Abusive would be getting paid far less than you should for the job in question. Walmart is not in that position. You aren't working around dangerous machinery or working 18 hours a day in 7 day work weeks. You're stocking T-shirts and junk food.
Its a completely unskilled position that commands an unskilled wage.
Stocking the shelves at Walmart isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Its not your employers job to ensure that you are making enough money to survive. That's your problem. All the employer has to do is comply with employment laws(many of which were put in place because of unions, which is good), he shouldn't have to tailor the wage to make sure each employee is above the poverty line.
I'm not saying unions shouldn't exist, or that they didn't do good in the past. But modern unions have really gotten way out of hand, yes enough to where you can generalize about them. But check out the union in question, it might be a good one. Then again it might not.
Unions are, ideally, something that appears for when some abuses actually occur. And then collective bargaining happens in response to a strike. And then once an agreement is reached the union is dissolved, with the understanding that if anything happens in the future it will reform. Its not a permanent organization, or if it is it lies basically dormant.
Its not an abusive salary if you are being paid exactly what the job is worth. Abusive would be getting paid far less than you should for the job in question. Walmart is not in that position. You aren't working around dangerous machinery or working 18 hours a day in 7 day work weeks. You're stocking T-shirts and junk food.
Its a completely unskilled position that commands an unskilled wage.
Stocking the shelves at Walmart isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Its not your employers job to ensure that you are making enough money to survive. That's your problem. All the employer has to do is comply with employment laws(many of which were put in place because of unions, which is good), he shouldn't have to tailor the wage to make sure each employee is above the poverty line.
That's really a different debate altogether. Minimum wage should be above the poverty line, otherwise we, the taxpayers, end up subsidizing private workforces. As a society, we appear unwilling to allow people to starve to death. Why should my taxes pay for the food that walmart's workers need, while walmart gets the labour they need at a fraction of that labour's real cost (the cost of keeping the labourers alive).
Grey Templar wrote:Thats exactly my point. Unions were to protect workers from dangerously unsafe environments and abusive salaries. Neither of which really exists any more.
Walmart, one of the most anti-union employers out there, pays their full-time employees so little that roughly half of them qualify for food stamps. Saying abusive salaries no longer exist is really ignorant.
That might be true, if the jobs actually were worth more than those so called "abusive" salaries.
Its not an abusive salary if you are being paid exactly what the job is worth. Abusive would be getting paid far less than you should for the job in question. Walmart is not in that position. You aren't working around dangerous machinery or working 18 hours a day in 7 day work weeks. You're stocking T-shirts and junk food.
Its a completely unskilled position that commands an unskilled wage.
Stocking the shelves at Walmart isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Its not your employers job to ensure that you are making enough money to survive. That's your problem. All the employer has to do is comply with employment laws(many of which were put in place because of unions, which is good), he shouldn't have to tailor the wage to make sure each employee is above the poverty line.
I'm not saying unions shouldn't exist, or that they didn't do good in the past. But modern unions have really gotten way out of hand, yes enough to where you can generalize about them. But check out the union in question, it might be a good one. Then again it might not.
Unions are, ideally, something that appears for when some abuses actually occur. And then collective bargaining happens in response to a strike. And then once an agreement is reached the union is dissolved, with the understanding that if anything happens in the future it will reform. Its not a permanent organization, or if it is it lies basically dormant.
Walmart pays a good deal more than minimum wage, at least for most jobs when I was involved.
Its not an abusive salary if you are being paid exactly what the job is worth. Abusive would be getting paid far less than you should for the job in question. Walmart is not in that position. You aren't working around dangerous machinery or working 18 hours a day in 7 day work weeks. You're stocking T-shirts and junk food.
Its a completely unskilled position that commands an unskilled wage.
Stocking the shelves at Walmart isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Its not your employers job to ensure that you are making enough money to survive. That's your problem. All the employer has to do is comply with employment laws(many of which were put in place because of unions, which is good), he shouldn't have to tailor the wage to make sure each employee is above the poverty line.
That's really a different debate altogether. Minimum wage should be above the poverty line, otherwise we, the taxpayers, end up subsidizing private workforces. As a society, we appear unwilling to allow people to starve to death. Why should my taxes pay for the food that walmart's workers need, while walmart gets the labour they need at a fraction of that labour's real cost (the cost of keeping the labourers alive).
Blame consumerstoo... people want super cheap products.
Its not an abusive salary if you are being paid exactly what the job is worth. Abusive would be getting paid far less than you should for the job in question. Walmart is not in that position. You aren't working around dangerous machinery or working 18 hours a day in 7 day work weeks. You're stocking T-shirts and junk food.
Its a completely unskilled position that commands an unskilled wage.
Stocking the shelves at Walmart isn't worth more than minimum wage.
Its not your employers job to ensure that you are making enough money to survive. That's your problem. All the employer has to do is comply with employment laws(many of which were put in place because of unions, which is good), he shouldn't have to tailor the wage to make sure each employee is above the poverty line.
That's really a different debate altogether. Minimum wage should be above the poverty line, otherwise we, the taxpayers, end up subsidizing private workforces. As a society, we appear unwilling to allow people to starve to death. Why should my taxes pay for the food that walmart's workers need, while walmart gets the labour they need at a fraction of that labour's real cost (the cost of keeping the labourers alive).
Above the poverty line based on what? Unmarried singles with no dependents? Married? Married with kids? How many kids?
Setting a blanket minimum wage based on the poverty is only going to shift the poverty line up, and its not going to get everyone who is under the poverty line.
2 individuals may make the exact same wage and only have one of them be under the poverty line, because he has greater expenses.
You won't get rid of poverty by raising the minimum wage, all you do is shift where the poverty line is(because poverty is relative)
But again, its still based on the number of people in the household.
Which level do you use for minimum wage?
Do we have a different minimum wage based on the number of people in the household now? So if 2 identical people are hired for the same job, but one has 2 kids, they will have 2 different levels of pay because one has family?
But again, its still based on the number of people in the household.
Which level do you use for minimum wage?
Do we have a different minimum wage based on the number of people in the household now? So if 2 identical people are hired for the same job, but one has 2 kids, they will have 2 different levels of pay because one has family?
Wait, I got lost. So conceptually, you agree that we should pay people a living wage, and your only concern is that we correctly identify what that living wage is? Or conceptually, you think that people don't deserve a living wage for jobs that you consider beneath you - in which case, why do you need to know what that number is?
I'm saying that making the minimum wage be based on the poverty level doesn't work, because the poverty level is 100% dependent on each individual's situation. There isn't a single Poverty level, there are a whole bunch of them.
Any level you choose is going to leave some people out of the benefit loop, or drive businesses out of business because you are making them pay far more than the labor being generated is worth.
If we set the minimum wage based on a single person with no dependents, everyone who has dependents is still going to be below the poverty line.
If we set the minimum wage based on having 3 dependents, everyone with more than 3 is still below the poverty line and everyone with less than 3 dependents is now being paid excessively.
If you have differing minimum wages based on the individual worker's # of dependents, you are allowing discrimination based on that criteria(businesses will simply not hire people with more than a certain number of dependents)
And yet, the minimum wage was established specifically to ensure that people who worked a full day made a living wage. Read the literature from the time it was passed, and what it's intention was.
You're suggesting that we have a math problem so complex that it cannot be figured out. I'm saying that's hogwash. I may not have the answer here in a thread on dakka, but the idea that it can't be done is ludicrous.
Maybe the definition of "living wage" is what is causing the issue here.
I would say living wage would be enough for a single person with no dependents to have an apartment, food, and clothing, a basic prepaid cell phone, and internet access. You can definitely get that on our current minimum wage.
Anything else is extra, and will necessitate getting paid more by finding a better job or getting promoted.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe the definition of "living wage" is what is causing the issue here.
I would say living wage would be enough for a single person with no dependents to have an apartment, food, and clothing, a basic prepaid cell phone, and internet access. You can definitely get that on our current minimum wage.
Anything else is extra, and will necessitate getting paid more by finding a better job or getting promoted.
On the topic of liveable wages vs. minimum wages let's look at California.
Here the min is $8/hr. IF you are lucky enough to find a job that gives you 40 hours/wk that grosses you $1280/mo. Assuming you are single(which has the lowest overhead total) you can take out 20% for taxes, so net $1024.
That's 1k to pay ALL of your bills and eat. Now keep that number in mind.
Where I live currently, a 1 bedroom apartment runs $1100-1500/mo. Most people say "then commute". Ok, let's look at what a 60 minute drive that costs you currently about $10 each way is like. Riverside will get you a $700/mo 1 bedroom apartment.
So now every day you work you take $15(we'll be generous) for gas, that's 2 hours work right there. Just between rent and gas to commute to your min wage job you've eaten your entire budget.
It is impossible to live in CA by yourself with what the state deems is an acceptable amount of money.
I'm aware that other places aren't as extreme, but then other places aren't also the largest economic forces in the country.
I couldn't tell you what the fix is. Raising min wage means companies will raise prices to offset that increase, and poor people will still not be able to afford what they can't already. Sure, it's unskilled labor, but someone has to do it.
I don't see a McDonalds union being able to make much happen in the way of income. And especially in the current economy, it's VERY easy to replace people as there are plenty who will gladly take your job, often for less than you get paid.
Teachers unions I get, as those people have committed their lives to that trade, same with skilled labor like construction. How is UPS delivery guy a skilled trade? It's one step above pizza delivery(granted with far more physical exertion). And those guys get paid all manner of good money for what they do.
It is impossible to live in CA by yourself with what the state deems is an acceptable amount of money.
.
Since when do people have the right to live by themselves? People I know have roommates, or even rent a room. A 1 bedroom apartment in my area is easily 1750$ a month but you can rent a room for as low as 400$ a month.
I think people's definition of a living wage is what is at odds right now.
And sometimes even the threat of a union can push a company to give union-type benefits to workers just to avoid having to deal with an actual union.
Or they can be Walmart and be horrible douches when it comes to unionizing.I think recent media showings of Walmart have shown that they think they're big enough to keep fighting off unions the "violent" way (not really violent, just not the most amenable way... such as giving people a decent paycheck, or actual benefits)
On the flip side of that, they can be like VW America, where the plant workers out in TN were given multiple opportunities to vote to become unionized, and each time, by pretty decent margins, they stayed independent.
Used to be labor and capital were opposed and went back and forth. Capital wanted unlimited immigration to drive down salaries, for instance. Seeing as unions are firmly in the pocket of the highly anti labor, open borders, no tariff party, I'm not sure what value they are supposed to contribute.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe the definition of "living wage" is what is causing the issue here.
I would say living wage would be enough for a single person with no dependents to have an apartment, food, and clothing, a basic prepaid cell phone, and internet access. You can definitely get that on our current minimum wage.
Anything else is extra, and will necessitate getting paid more by finding a better job or getting promoted.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe the definition of "living wage" is what is causing the issue here.
I would say living wage would be enough for a single person with no dependents to have an apartment, food, and clothing, a basic prepaid cell phone, and internet access. You can definitely get that on our current minimum wage.
Anything else is extra, and will necessitate getting paid more by finding a better job or getting promoted.
So what happens if you have dependents?
Well you will already have a tax beak because of them.
But really, the wage offered at a job really shouldn't take into account what your personal financial situation is(employers aren't allowed to even ask about that sort of thing as I recall) or how many dependents you have.
Why shouldn't it? That is the entire point of a salary. To survive on.
Clearly, Walmart is making plenty of profit- therefore, they aren't truly paying their workers the worth of their labour. Of course, some profit is needed to allow for growth, but until the surplus value of a worker's labour is $0, any given worker is not being paid enough.
Therefore, the argument that they are already being paid their worth, is invalid.
Blackhoof wrote: Clearly, Walmart is making plenty of profit- therefore, they aren't truly paying their workers the worth of their labour. Of course, some profit is needed to allow for growth, but until the surplus value of a worker's labour is $0, any given worker is not being paid enough.
Marx's Labour Theory of Value is, basically, the work of a very smart man who very much not an economist. In other words, while Marx contributed a great deal, his specific economic concepts are junk.
This idea that profit can only be the result of labour not being paid what they are owed ignores that management is a specialised kind of labour, and that capital itself has value that demands a return on its investment. As such, the value generated by the business's activities can be more sensibly understood as being split between the wage paid for labour and management, and the profits taken by the owners of the capital.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Yep. The question was - What if you have dependants. Answer: don't.
The answer to what happens to people in need is to not have people in need. Extraordinary.
Then you have Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Wick, etc. etc.
Why should the public pay a subsidy to corporations who won't pay their workers a fair wage>?
They are being paid a fair wage. Its fair for the work being asked of them. Unskilled and unspecialized labor commands an appropriate wage. Its not the company's job to make sure that wage allows you to live any particular kind of lifestyle.
Grey Templar wrote: They are being paid a fair wage. Its fair for the work being asked of them. Unskilled and unspecialized labor commands an appropriate wage. Its not the company's job to make sure that wage allows you to live any particular kind of lifestyle.
As I've explained many times now, the claim you make there requires some objective measure of 'fair' which just doesn't exist, and on top of that requires an assumption of a perfect market (all information available to all parties, equal bargaining power, no cost to entry or exit from market, no party large enough to influence prices etc...) As those assumptions aren't close to being met for most job markets, and certainly not for minimum wage markets, then your assumption just doesn't work at all.
You know, that's really good advice for the individual who's on low income. But as a piece of advice for society about what to do about people on minimum wage, it's really obnoxious. It's just saying that we as a society shouldn't do anything to help other people, we should instead just tell them to survive on whatever low rate of pay they can manage.
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
I'm glad that your life is apparently easy enough that you can casually wander through town and find your ideal job that pays your ideal wage in exchange for your ideal amount of services rendered. However a lot of people, in the current economic climate especially, don't have that luxury.
You say "fair isn't a thing in the real world", but that just goes to show how little you know of the world. Wal-Mart's business practices wouldn't and does not fly in quite a lot of other developed countries in the world. It flies in America, because here all we care about is the almighty dollar.
Incidentally, those countries that don't tolerate the blatantly anti-employee practices that Wal-Mart utilizes also tend to have things like free health care and free College. Hm...
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
If only there were sufficient jobs available for people to have the realistic option to not work minimum wage jobs. This is where the 'bootstrap' ideology fails; its all well and good to tell people to improve themselves, often in a rather pompous manner, but there are a finite 'good' jobs available.
People who work minimum wage jobs are generally there for 2 reasons. they don't mind/can't be arsed or they are trapped in them due to education, finances, location etc.
I spent 4 years working in various horrific minimum wages jobs after I graduated because that's all the work I could get, every single real interview turned me down because I didn't have any experience.
I eventually managed to get my current job which has set my up for life but it took a series of lucky breaks to get my foot in the door.
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.
If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.
Or move to a different location.
Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.
One should strive to improve their life in the world. I strive my ass off to get where I am and now I can "relax" while still striving to improve it evening more Inner motivation, inner drive and inner "I need to get the Hell out of this place" does help.
Think its to force SS agency to remove those that are gaming the system? Maybe. Sounds good to me if they go that route if it achieves the desire effect.
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.
If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.
Or move to a different location.
Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.
So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).
If only there were sufficient jobs available for people to have the realistic option to not work minimum wage jobs. This is where the 'bootstrap' ideology fails; its all well and good to tell people to improve themselves, often in a rather pompous manner, but there are a finite 'good' jobs available.
Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.
It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.
How so? Wal-Mart employees do work at an intensity and in conditions that are much more difficult than similar classifications of jobs, while also earning significantly less. How exactly is that fair?
Hell, as a Security Guard, I was being paid 18 dollars an hour to, quite literally, sit behind a desk and play Knights of the Old Republic and gak-post on DakkaDakka on my laptop for 8 hours a day in the lobby of an office building. Can you explain to me how it's "fair" that I earned that wage while a Wal-Mart employee earns significantly less?
So quit? Fair isn't a thing in the real world. If someone agrees to work at Walmart for gak wages while working their ass off... they are stupid.
Or there isn't another job they are qualified to do which pays more in their local area since Wal-mart priced out any competitors and so they closed down.
If that is the case, suffer through it while putting yourself through school so you actually have marketable skills.
Or move to a different location.
Nobody is being forced to work at Walmart. There is always something you can do to better yourself. If you can't be bothered to put in the effort then I have no sympathy for you.
So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).
You don't see a problem with that scenario?
Whats the Cost of Living in the area around Wal-Mart? We dealing with all Wal-Marts or a specific area Wal-Mart here?
Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.
It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.
So you are saying that rather than retrain to be a tradesman they would rather stack shelves or scrub floors for a (barely adequate) living? That seems highly unlikely.
Problem is, at least in America, people are being indoctrinated with "go to college in order to be successful" as a result, there are TONS of jobs out there that are definitely middle class jobs being unfilled, simply because people are becoming more and more allergic to real work.... Don't want to stock shelves at Walmart for 30 years? go to a night school on scholarship to become a welder, or pipe fitter, etc.
It's not that there aren't enough "good" jobs available, it's that people don't want to get dirty, or do actual work.
So you are saying that rather than retrain to be a tradesman they would rather stack shelves or scrub floors for a (barely adequate) living? That seems highly unlikely.
For some people, why is that so hard to believe? Most people in America have a TV of some sort, and so they all see the "ITT Tech" or DeVry or other adult, alternative education commercials... they know it's there, yet they don't use the opportunity. There are definitely some who view going to school as taking a risk where they may lose out, and make even LESS money than their barely adequate wage currently.
Obviously, not everyone fits that bill, because I'd never paint with that broad of a brush
Co'tor Shas wrote: And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.
Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?
Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.
That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.
Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.
Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.
I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"
Co'tor Shas wrote: And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.
Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?
Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.
That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.
Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.
Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.
I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"
That's pretty much want you guys are advocating.
But the Government wants to make everyone their friend
Co'tor Shas wrote: And if you have to rely on welfare to survive, that's hardly a livable wage.
Look at the people you are talking about. Are they truly unable, or are they just unwilling to make cuts?
Can you support a family on minimum wage at Walmart. No, and you shouldn't try or expect that you should be able to.
That situation is no different from a middle class worker trying to live beyond his means by buying a boat, swanky car, and taking expensive vacations all on credit.
Both are living beyond your means, and if you are in that situation you must improve your means.
Don't have kids unless you can support them. And don't blame your employer because he isn't paying enough for your financial situation, he's paying for the work you do. He not paying based on what you need.
I'm not going to go up to my boss and say ''hey, I'd really like to start a family/get a new car/put a down payment on a house. So could you give me a raise?"
That's pretty much want you guys are advocating.
I'm not advocating anything, I was just pointing out something. Welfare fraud is really tiny, the people on welfare are generally not abusing the system.
Maybe dual income family with the other spouse making a bit more I can see it. Single parent though is S.O.L if she/he have no support from family. That does not mean make a life time career in Wal-Mart though and just do not depend on that one income from Wal-Mart.
You can still be poor and support a family. You'll just need to make over minimum wage.
That still sounds very much like you are saying that people can't have a family if they are poor.
On a single income, it's extremely irresponsible to attempt to support a family on minimum wage.. if that means we're trying to institute an eugenics program, then so be it... It doesn't sound like it to me. To me, it sounds like a reasonable comment.
Unions are great. They're there to protect the rights of the workers. They're a necessary part of business.
Except, of course, when a union becomes something that exists just to sustain itself, workers be damned, to the point where union members cannot actually work.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: On a single income, it's extremely irresponsible to attempt to support a family on minimum wage.. if that means we're trying to institute an eugenics program, then so be it... It doesn't sound like it to me. To me, it sounds like a reasonable comment.
Yeah, it is irresponsible to have a kid when you aren't earning enough to provide for it. But you know who wasn't irresponsible - the kid. The kid ends up with cheap, processed food, living in a tiny apartment in the bad end of town. The kid misses out on time with his parents because both parents have to work 40 hours a week.
It's all good and easy to say that people ought to be responsible for their own actions, but the brunt of too many irresponsible decisions are born by other people.
And that's if we're okay with this idea that's crept in to the right wing that people who work 40 hours a week shouldn't earn a reasonable wage. I mean, I remember when you guys used to limit your contempt to unemployed people...
Manchu wrote: Bit too tense in here folks. It's just a war game forum.
Good point. We should refocus the topic. Resolved: gamers should organize.
I'm thinking Teamsters. Only those Manly Men can handle our concentrated manliness.
"Come Leonidas, let us reason together."
"Go yourself."
- some gyro eating dude.
It's all good and easy to say that people ought to be responsible for their own actions, but the brunt of too many irresponsible decisions are born by other people.
And that's if we're okay with this idea that's crept in to the right wing that people who work 40 hours a week shouldn't earn a reasonable wage. I mean, I remember when you guys used to limit your contempt to unemployed people...
I agree that it's the kids who usually suffer for their parents' stupidity... And depending on the job, yeah a real, full time job shouldn't be minimum wage either.
Me personally, and I know I've said it on other threads, but "Minimum Wage" should be for those who are in school and still living with parents getting that valuable work experience, or those who are so new to the country they don't speak the local language... In BOTH cases, it should be temporary as each one moves along in life... the kid grows up and gets better work elsewhere. The immigrant better learns the local language, and moves on to better work as well.
Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.
44Ronin wrote: As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.
Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.
Then you're just trolling.
PLus you're ignorant. We don't like slavery. We like indentured servitude. Get it right peasant!
Fraz... the education system in Australia is lacking, since the Queen refuses to send any more money to those convicts
I wouldn't say refuse, more like deathly afraid their ships will be attacked by Kraken, leaping Great White sharks, and killer drop bears launching themselves catapultlike from nearby forests.
After all thats what stopped the Japanese invasion fleet in February '42.
Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.
This might be more to do with your circumstances and assumptions than the truth. I'm an engineer. In the course of my day, I interact almost entirely with college-educated professionals, with the exception of the few times a month I go out to eat, in which cases, there's a waitress involved. I take public transportation, but again, based on where I live and work, most of the people commuting into the city are also going to professional-level jobs.
It would be very easy for me to draw the same conclusion as you, based on my personal experiences.
My wife, however, is a nutritionist for WIC. And she tells me what's really going on. How people simply cannot get ahead by wanting to. How seemingly good jobs, like working at an ophthalmologist office, still make so little as to qualify for WIC supplements. When we're out in the neighborhood, she'll frequently know someone who is working, who is a client at her office. These aren't lazy unemployed layabouts, it's the economic environment that most people in this country live in.
People on dakka are largely the exception, not the rule. Poor people can't afford wargaming. I think nothing of dropping $500 on models in a month - that's half of minimum wage, before deductions are taken out.
The truth is that there are numerous factors that perpetuate the cycle of poverty in this country. We're the only industrialized country that invest more into schools doing well than schools doing poorly. Everywhere else realizes that all children are worthwhile and puts efforts into redeeming failing schools. In the US, conservative rhetoric implies that failing schools are the teacher's fault, and therefore, those teachers don't deserve raises. And the children of wealthy parents get to go to private charter schools, avoiding the issue altogether.
Our financial systems are designed to exploit the poor. If you're poor, you can't qualify for a standard loan. You might get a credit card, something I take for granted, but probably not. Bank overdraft fees compound small errors into financial catastrophes, and if they avoid the bank, they pay exorbitant fees for simple things like cashing their paychecks.
When hedge fund managers and investors like Warren Buffet are calling for higher minimum wages, this should be indicative that there are positive economic benefits to not keeping people in poverty.
You say people make mistakes, "bad life choices". But take the example of the child born to a couple who can't afford it. Let's see, we have conservative 'moral' policies dictating that sex ed be limited to abstinence only, in spite of all evidence showing that this does not work. We have conservative policies that restrict access to abortion for those who would seek to avoid the 'bad decision'. And, you can see this in effect because of the differences in children born out-of-wedlock in red states versus blue states.
The US used to have a middle-class that was the envy of the world. Now, we're not doing so well. (http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/index.html?hpt=hp_t3). A big part of that is the erosion of unions over the years. Most labor gains have started as the result of organized union activity, and have spread to the rest of the population as a result. When unions are weak, all labor suffers.
44Ronin wrote: As I said it's a modern reinvention of slavery.
Edit all you want. Ban me even. I'll still say it.
I wouldn't say "slavery", as Walmart has yet to be able to sell an employee to BestBuy.
I would say "serfdom", however. Frankly, the whole system at the minimum wage level has moved away from capitalism and moved to economic feudalism.
Think about it: a Walmart worker makes a pittance at Walmart, and the only place he can afford to shop is the Walmart he works at (actually, he can't afford to shop there, either, but its the cheapest place in town so that's where his money goes) which means the money he makes goes right back into his employer's pocket. So the company gets the labor and the reward for that labor (and the government support, which doesn't fit smoothly into my feudalism comparison, but feth it, I'm committed at this point). If the peasant is lucky he can keep a few pennies for himself at the end of the day, but otherwise ALL of the money flows upward to the employer. Sounds pretty feudalistic to me.
The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?
I think the whole "If you're poor, don't be dumb and have kids" mindset is ignoring the realities of life. Some families are doing alright but lose a good job because of lay-offs. Some moms have a husband walk out on them and their kids. Some people make bad decisions.
The difference is that if you're born poor, without some kind of a safety net, you have no room for error. Middle class kid can make a mistake and get knocked up, and recover because their family has the resources to help out.
I think its right to incentivize people to work hard to improve their lot in life, but I also think that you are ignoring some of the realities of the world, if you think the only way you can end up poor (with or without kids) is if you deserve it.
Frazzled wrote: Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?
Many illegal immigrants end up selling themselves into slavery to get here. The Coyotes confiscate their documents so that they can't leave whatever building they dump them in, then force them to pay off the debt incurred in transporting them accross the border. Of course, they are paid less than minimum wage and will never make enough to repay the debt.
As for people already here; retraining requires education and education requires money. If you work a minimum wage job, money is something you don't have enough of. If you can barely afford to live, you don't have the money to pay for the education you need to get better skilsl to get a better job.
Stop pretending the solution is simple, because it isn't.
So they're not earning enough to survive without extra help from the government despite working full-time and your solution is for them to go back to school (which costs money as well as time, cutting back on their availability to work and hence earn what little they can) or move (which costs money).
You don't see a problem with that scenario?
Night Classes, Online Classes, Weekend classes.
Going to a community college, their vocational programs are extremely short. The Welding one here is aboout 2 years.
Frazzled wrote: Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?
Many illegal immigrants end up selling themselves into slavery to get here. The Coyotes confiscate their documents so that they can't leave whatever building they dump them in, then force them to pay off the debt incurred in transporting them accross the border. Of course, they are paid less than minimum wage and will never make enough to repay the debt.
As for people already here; retraining requires education and education requires money. If you work a minimum wage job, money is something you don't have enough of. If you can barely afford to live, you don't have the money to pay for the education you need to get better skilsl to get a better job.
Stop pretending the solution is simple, because it isn't.
I paid a total of 10$ a year for my college. 310$ if you include books
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
There are loans available.
Going into debt is a good idea for only a very few reasons, but education is one of them.
We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.
Hell, In california, if you are on foodstamps or welfare, they offer to free daycare for your children if you are going back to school.
Grey Templar wrote: My College has free daycare for both faculty and students(its provided by the child development program, so students learn by working with real kids)
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
There are loans available.
Going into debt is a good idea for only a very few reasons, but education is one of them.
We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.
The student loan situation is another problem. A lot of the debt that gets incurred is unreasonable. The costs of college have ballooned out of proportion to the economic benefits of having the college education. At this point, going into debt for education may not be worth it anymore.
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
That takes money. Money the feudal system doesn't leave you with.
Ever heard of scholarships? or Pell Grants? If you call the school, even if you know you don't have money, they'll help you out as best they can.
Scholarships can be difficult to get, depending on requirements. They exist, but there aren't enough out there for eveyone who wants to go to college.
Pell Grants are great, as long as you are going to a local community college. They don't offer enough money to cover attending a four-year college (at least not any of the ones in Maryland). Sometimes, they don't even cover a non-local community college, as I found out when I had to take a class in the next county over and wound up paying out of pocket for a chunk of it (not all of it, but a couple hundred dollars' worth). Also, Pell Grants are finite in number and are first-come first-serve. If everybody is trying to go to college to better themselves, there won't be enough to go around.
Frazzled wrote: The difference of course is the employee is free to leave at any time. The employee is also free to obtain better skills to increase his marketability.
We are not living in a feudal system and we don't have slavery. The comparison shows complete ignorance of what feudal systems were like and it is demeaning for the harsh reality of slavery, both past and present.
In a feudal system wealth flows from the bottom up to the top. That is exactly what is happeneing with Walmart, and other minimum-wage jobs.
Yes, there are some other bits about knights performing military service by guarding the serfs who work their land, which don't apply here, as Walmart has no interst in protecting its employees at all, since it can always get more. Actually, GT you may be right. This isn't feudalism. It's worse, because at least medieval serfs could rely on their lord to protect them from bandits. Modern minimum wage workers don't even have that going for them.
Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to
Jihadin wrote: Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to
*Sarcasm On* Oh, you mea you have to get shot at and get PTSD to make a living? The Military industrial complex is out to get black people, they always make sure africans get shot first. Ever notice how we havenet had a war against white people? THE MILITARY IS EVIL *off*
Real argument I heard
Frazzled wrote: Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?
What you guys need to do is build a moat round the US , then get a politician elected whos' catch phrase is "STOP THE BOATS" (I've heard it at least 1800 times now) it seems to work wonders.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree that it's the kids who usually suffer for their parents' stupidity... And depending on the job, yeah a real, full time job shouldn't be minimum wage either.
Shouldn't be, yeah. But to run a variation on a famous quote - you don't write laws according to the economy you want, you write laws based on the economy you have.
Me personally, and I know I've said it on other threads, but "Minimum Wage" should be for those who are in school and still living with parents getting that valuable work experience, or those who are so new to the country they don't speak the local language... In BOTH cases, it should be temporary as each one moves along in life... the kid grows up and gets better work elsewhere. The immigrant better learns the local language, and moves on to better work as well.
Nearly every. single. person. that I've seen working a minimum wage job who is older than 24, and doesn't have the obvious markers of being an immigrant are doing that crap job because they fethed up their life. Whether it was through drugs, dropping out of school because they were too cool, or they broke some other laws... Doesn't matter. There are, quite simply, too many opportunities for people to move up and on in this country that people simply waste, for me to have much sympathy for the people who bitch and moan about how you can't raise a family on min. wage... That's literally not what minimum wage was designed for.
My own sample is very small, as there's only a couple of people who's life story I know that has led to them on the minimum wage, but it doesn't differ from your own observations. I've got a cousin who just lost his minimum wage job because he was caught and is soon to be convicted of spraying graffiti on a train - at the age of 26... I mean for feth's sake.
Though I'd argue against you when you say that isn't what the minimum wage is for. I'd argue at its simplest form the minimum wage says if you're willing to work a full week, then the law will guarantee that you earn enough to live okay. Exactly where 'okay' begins and ends is a whole other argument, and how much you can increase 'okay' before you start losing jobs and making lots of people 'not okay' is another argument still, but the idea that if you're willing to work then you'll have enough to get by is the absolutely core of what minimum wage is about - whether you're a feth up or not, at least you're working and that means you should do okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
squidhills wrote: The student loan situation is another problem. A lot of the debt that gets incurred is unreasonable. The costs of college have ballooned out of proportion to the economic benefits of having the college education. At this point, going into debt for education may not be worth it anymore.
College loans have one of the highest rates of repayments... for graduates. The issue of debt is with kids who drop out after a semester or two.
I do agree that the costs of college are a big issue though. Not so much at the Ivy League level, but the mid-tier level charges outrageous fees for education that is delivered better for less elsewhere in the world. But even with the cost blow out it's an excellent investment.
Jihadin wrote: Join the National Guard. Hell they even add in a bigger monthly stipend for a student/part time student. Also the Government pretty much pays for it all Draw BAH to
*Sarcasm On* Oh, you mea you have to get shot at and get PTSD to make a living? The Military industrial complex is out to get black people, they always make sure africans get shot first. Ever notice how we havenet had a war against white people? THE MILITARY IS EVIL *off*
Real argument I heard
Its okay Little Guy. Though that was not directed at you. I do want to point out that the word "African" which was used in conjunction with "African American" has been phased out of circulation in the US Military for awhile.
I also want to point you cannot make a living off of one weekend a month pay let alone two weeks a year training. Your National Guard with time on your hand not Active Duty with hardly anytime on your hand
Though I'd argue against you when you say that isn't what the minimum wage is for. I'd argue at its simplest form the minimum wage says if you're willing to work a full week, then the law will guarantee that you earn enough to live okay. Exactly where 'okay' begins and ends is a whole other argument, and how much you can increase 'okay' before you start losing jobs and making lots of people 'not okay' is another argument still, but the idea that if you're willing to work then you'll have enough to get by is the absolutely core of what minimum wage is about - whether you're a feth up or not, at least you're working and that means you should do okay.
As I know people's definitions differ, my definition for what min. wage "should" get you:
rent on a small place (not some place completely bug/crime riddled) of your own. be able to pay the insurance/note on a "reliable" vehicle (it doesn't have to be the best thing out there, just that it runs and goes from point A to B when you need it), be able to cover your utilities, if you live conservatively/smartly, food on the table, internet/ cell phone, and, if you're smart with the money, a bit for a movie or a "date" each month/quarter (I say quarter, because sometimes we want to be a bit more extravigent).
Where many people go wrong of course, is that they "need" the most expensive package of cable/satellite TV provider, big TVs, iPads, iPhones, iCars, etc. and complain that they don't make enough money.
I think the wage discussion would be better off if we stick to someplace tangible. Right now we're using a highway lamp post to beat the dead horse even further.
Employers and Corporations did not feel generous and decide to give you two days off every week to have a social/personal life. (We now call them weekends). Corporations did not just feel like being nice one day and give their employees paid vacations. CEOs didn't get together in a board room and say "Let's give our employees more rights at work" or "Maybe there should be laws to limit our power over an employee".
Virtually ALL the benefits you have at work, whether you work in the public or private sector, all of the benefits and rights you enjoy everyday are there because unions fought hard and long for them against big business who did everything they could to prevent giving you your rights. Many union leaders and members even lost their lives for things we take for granted today.
The right-wing attack on unions is nothing more than ignorance, lack of education, and propaganda.
If republicans would rather support corporations instead of organized groups of workers working to secure a fair work environment A.K.A a union, I ask them to walk the walk as well. Give up every benefit and right that you use that unions are responsible for.
Complete trust and submit yourself to the corporate agenda you fight for. Play by their rules with no influence from democrats or labor unions to try to force rights among the workers of this country. Dedicate your life to their life goal of making your company more money than the year before. Just understand that this may mean sacrificing the union fought rights you enjoy everyday. I mean, you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you? Like bashing unions on your union fought lunch break? Which means if you practice what you preach, you don't get a lunch break.
Corporations use to work employees 80+ hours a week, offer no breaks, hire children, offer horrid, unsanitary work conditions, paid literally next to nothing, and even murder. Not murder with a pen like they do today, but actual murder. They basically did whatever they wanted.
This is what they were like before unions. Don't take my word for it, look it up. (Links at bottom of page). If we rid the world of unions tomorrow, who is to say that they won't go right back to the way they were merely 70 years ago? The GOP governor of Maine signed a bill to repeal child labor laws this year, maybe they are going back to their roots whether we have unions or not.
So conservatives, please practice what you preach and give up all these rights and leave the umbrella of these laws for they were brought to you by unions...
36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union
•Weekends
•All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
•Paid Vacation
•FMLA
•Sick Leave
•Social Security
•Minimum Wage
•Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
•8-Hour Work Day
•Overtime Pay
•Child Labor Laws
•Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
•40 Hour Work Week
•Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
•Unemployment Insurance
•Pensions
•Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
•Employer Health Care Insurance
•Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
•Wrongful Termination Laws
•Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
•Whistleblower Protection Laws
•Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
•Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
•Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
•Sexual Harassment Laws
•Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
•Holiday Pay
•Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
•Privacy Rights
•Pregnancy and Parental Leave
•Military Leave
•The Right to Strike
•Public Education for Children
•Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
•Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States
So will conservatives give up all 36 of these union fought rights? Will they stand by their rhetoric that unions are thugs and refuse to take benefits from these "thugs" or will they hypocritically carry on the diatribe that unions are ruining this country while enjoying their weekends and paid vacations?
Or...
Maybe they could just admit that while not perfect, like anything else, unions have done great things for working people that they use and benefit from everyday of their lives?
Maybe a conservative union-hating family got to have some of the best moments of their lives while on vacation from work, and they still got to come to a job still there waiting for them, because of unions?
Maybe a conservative can't wait for their lunch break at work so they can turn on the radio and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Back talk about how horrible unions are?
If you don't want to give up all your union fought rights and benefits at work, I understand. I don't want to either, that's why I'm pro-union and vote Democrat.
But maybe you could just admit that unions are not demons spawned from hell, and admit the FACT that they have improved your life in more ways than one?
Or am I asking too much?
Taken from this site ....http://la.aflcio.org/gnoaflcio/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=257e8c90-0ac8-43f7-b0c6-dce69756e21c
Educate yourself about it. Unions are not perfect but they are a necessary evil.
hehehe, your funny, this is a cut and paste from some liberal blog. What they are saying is that Unions have done a lot of good, most of what they did helps and is now federal law. What is their main purpose today. For the most part, maintain political connections with money taken from their members.
Here is some impartial data. You can find a lot of the above from one party or the other but impartial and unfiltered data speaks for itself.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As I know people's definitions differ, my definition for what min. wage "should" get you:
rent on a small place (not some place completely bug/crime riddled) of your own. be able to pay the insurance/note on a "reliable" vehicle (it doesn't have to be the best thing out there, just that it runs and goes from point A to B when you need it), be able to cover your utilities, if you live conservatively/smartly, food on the table, internet/ cell phone, and, if you're smart with the money, a bit for a movie or a "date" each month/quarter (I say quarter, because sometimes we want to be a bit more extravigent).
I think that's pretty reasonable. At a minimum wage of, say, $10 an hour, with tax paid and benefits received breaking about even, the person is looking at $400 a week for everything you mention there. Which I think is about fair, from my experiences of the cost of living in the US (though we did visit the more expensive, touristy places, and I understand it varies pretty considerably from place to place).
Where many people go wrong of course, is that they "need" the most expensive package of cable/satellite TV provider, big TVs, iPads, iPhones, iCars, etc. and complain that they don't make enough money.
That's not just a mistake made by low income earners. My brother in law earns in excess of $150k, and they've never got any money. Their son is just slightly on the autism spectrum and they were referred to a specialist, who was going to charge $2,000 for a short course of treatment. They were saying how they were going to do this, but had no idea where they'd find the money. I could help but stir and so I asked when they were picking up her new eternity ring, that came in at about $5,000... she didn't get the connection at all.
It's also worth recognising that depending on your social circumstances, a lot of that stuff is cheap. I've told the story before about some guys I knew at uni, who bought a really nice TV and a satellite deal, despite earning bugger all money. But watching TV and playing console games was pretty much what they did. They didn't go out to the movies or to pubs. From where I am now, without that much spare time, I see that stuff as a luxury because I'd be watching maybe an hour of pay TV a night, but when you're in the house killing time like six hours a day, pay TV actually becomes a smart option.
That said, I've got nothing to justify the spinning rims on the car
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mike1975 wrote: hehehe, your funny, this is a cut and paste from some liberal blog.
I think we all assumed that
What they are saying is that Unions have done a lot of good, most of what they did helps and is now federal law.
I saw an interesting argument that if people want the union movement to rebound, they should give the libertarians what they want - take out the federal labour laws, but also take out the controls on union activism. Let the free market and bargaining decide employee conditions. People would flood back to the unions.
Every time I've been in a union the bastards have given away my penalty rates for an under inflation pay rise. I felt like a chump.
I've heard amazing tales about strong unions though.
Yes, Yes they do. Like i said, I paid only 10$ a year.
The majority of people can count on their ability to pay factoring into whether or not they are admitted. And how much effort an admissions (or bursar's) office is willing to dedicate to their case.
There are, of course, exemptions for minorities, the poor, and those with special needs; all of which attract funding from the state.
Jihadin wrote: Eesshh. That sounds like something that has "Comrade" all over it....
Its much better to cease production locally and move it overseas to COMMUNIST CHINA, instead of supporting the local area, its much better to support COMMUNIST CHINA just like a good Little Capitalist!
Aerethan wrote: So I've lived in California my entire life. We have a few unions here, mostly related to construction and food service jobs. I've never been in one.
What EXACTLY is their current purpose?
People say it's to negotiate this or that benefit, but don't people do that when they get hired? If you don't like the benefits a job offers, don't work there.
I'm just very confused on the entire thing. Mostly on how there are people whose ONLY job is to manage the union for other people, which off the top of my head makes zero sense as that person will just make decisions that benefit themselves(as humanity has proven time and again).
So help me out here people. Why on earth are these things around?
Well unions intentions is to give workers etc a powerblock to work from so managment wont have as an easy time to ruthlessly exploiting the workforce. Oh I see American union... BEHIND YOU
Frazzled wrote: Really? So illegal immigrants can walk thousands of miles and get a better job here, but Shmee the peasant is somehow blocked from walking down the street?
What you guys need to do is build a moat round the US , then get a politician elected whos' catch phrase is "STOP THE BOATS" (I've heard it at least 1800 times now) it seems to work wonders.
We have a moat, its just not deep enough. We need to dredge it out. But where can get w hard working crew of thousands who will work cheaply? What to do what to do...
Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.
When I worked for the school system, I was a highly paid "support service" position which means I was a 30$+ an hour combined into a union with 10$ an hour bus drivers. They basically hated the few weird positions who were lumped in to the support service union and they did not at all look out for the needs of my positions. They would often only negotiate increases for specific tiers and even attempt to negotiate that 'the higher positions will forgo pay increases or take a decrease'.
But, if I wanted to opt-out, instead of dues, I would have had to pay an equal amount out of every paycheck which goes to a political fund which the union can spend how it chooses. Technically it didn't go to the union directly but it was still forced for me to pay. So it is better to be in the union in that situation even when they are negotiating against your needs and probably won't support you if you got into an issue with administration.
Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.
I'm not sure you're right about this. "Right To Work" states are the ones that don't allow this to happen - the union cannot automatically collect dues from non-members. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).
Many unions in states with 'right to work' allow employees to 'opt-out' of the union, but you still have to pay dues. Your salary and benefits is still negotiated with the union, the only difference is they won't support you if there is an issue. It is basically a way to force people to be in the union.
I'm not sure you're right about this. "Right To Work" states are the ones that don't allow this to happen - the union cannot automatically collect dues from non-members. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law).
They are not 'dues'... By making them not dues, I think they meet the letter of the law. Otherwise they could force you in the union with no choice. I think by accepting the position you have to agree to the 'donation' but it is not actually a due being collected.
kronk wrote: Yeah, not being forced to pay due to a union is the primary "benefit" of a right to work state.
I think being forced into a union anywhere is rather despicable.
I think the point of that is that the only way unions can demand benefits is if everyone gets them, and thus people are getting the benefits without contributing. The only other solution is to make it so if you are not in a union, you get none of the benefits that the union argues for.
Are you being purposely obtuse or do you not get it? I'd really like to know.
When a union argues for, lets say, better working conditions, everybody gets them. It doesn't matter whether you are union or not. why should you get the benefits without any cost?
Maybe I didn't have a problem with the working conditions.
If I ever do have a problem, I'll be sure to ring the Union up. I'll come to the union when I have a problem, not a moment sooner.
conversely, I think this is how unions should operate. They should not be organizations existing in perpetuity looking to justify their own existence.
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe I didn't have a problem with the working conditions.
If I ever do have a problem, I'll be sure to ring the Union up. I'll come to the union when I have a problem, not a moment sooner.
And why should they listen to you now?
conversely, I think this is how unions should operate. They should not be organizations existing in perpetuity looking to justify their own existence.
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe they will because I am going to join now and as a member I'm entitled to all their services.
That's cute. You remind me of the people that don't like to purchase Fire Protection membership and then cry when their house burns down as the Fire Department watches even though they are willing to pay their annual fee "right now!!!!".
Unions aren't like insurance.
Except they are.
Unless you think you should get $20 of legal services for your problem.
I shouldn't have to have them all the time, only when I need them.
It's like you have an internal firewall in your brain or something.
Your first step into the building and the pay and benefits the first minute you clock in, all those are benefits you got because of that particular union.
Grey Templar wrote: No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.
Except everybody benefits.
That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.
If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.
Grey Templar wrote: No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.
Except everybody benefits.
That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.
If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.
You would still get non-pay benefits though. Vacation, insurance, union-representation in disputes, etc.
We had a similar issue though when I worked with the ambulance. The EMT-Bs and the Paramedics were in the same union. Each year only one of us would get a raise and the other one was the concession.
In your situation it seems like the kind of scenario where you would end up with multiple unions representing distinct people, although it sounds like there are not enough of you to have that power.
Grey Templar wrote: No, the Union should only negotiate for its members. Nothing beyond that.
Except everybody benefits.
That was not true in my case where they were negotiating that people at my 'class' of position would take pay cuts to justify pay raises for the other positions. They were not looking out for people who were in the 25+ position classification but still represented by the union.
If you are a union which mixes skilled professionals with unskilled manual labor, your duty is to represent all your members, not just the majority of them.
You would still get non-pay benefits though. Vacation, insurance, union-representation in disputes, etc.
We had a similar issue though when I worked with the ambulance. The EMT-Bs and the Paramedics were in the same union. Each year only one of us would get a raise and the other one was the concession.
In your situation it seems like the kind of scenario where you would end up with multiple unions representing distinct people, although it sounds like there are not enough of you to have that power.
It was education, so Teachers and support staff have different unions, and they are lines drawn based upon those who work with kids as 'professionals' IE: teachers, and then everyone else.
The big issue was the union would basically never support the high level skilled members of the union as it wasn't worth the time. So even being in the union, it was always an issue. We actually had two employees both get called up for the reserves literally at the same time in the late 90's and one was a building service (janitor) and the other was a media technician (television producer, technology expert) and both needed support to not lose their jobs and have a right to have a temporary person put there so they can get their jobs when they come back. They supported the building service person and wouldn't represent the media service technician. So the building service who could literally work ANYWHERE in the county was guaranteed his job back at the same school, but the highly specialized technician with specific TV media experience which applied to a small number of schools would come back from reserves with a chance that he would not even have a job and no chance to get his current school or position back.
And it all came down to pay grade and effort expended. I was told multiple times directly, and openly by the school's union rep if I ever needed help, I was on my own and that they wouldn't even bring my issue up with the higher ups because I 'make enough money to not need representation'. Basically get your own lawyer and cover yourself. I understand if 'representation' was a fixed resource, but in this particular issue, it seemed like they could have fought for both employees on the same 'dime' especially since it was literally happening all over the country at the time.
If you accept that the union should let those who have the means to protect themselves 'fend for themselves' then the system works. I never really needed representation, but the sad thing is the union drives quality employees away from the industry and that harms kids since the industry is 'educating kids'. I feel it was a bad that there was such an adversarial attitude towards professionals in the union opposed to trying to be inclusive for the good of kids and retaining the best that industry had to offer. I know lots of people who work at schools because they take pride in the kids, and that is hard when people are resentful and adversarial due to pay-grade which in my experience was a direct result of union management.
The problem is that there is really no "fend for yourself" option AFAIK. From what I know, at least in my state, you can't force people to join the union but the union can't refuse to negotiate for or represent the non-union employees.
My problem is with the idea of "I don't have to pay the union anything but if I decide to need them I should be able to join them today and they should have to spend money on me that I didn't want to give them when I got a free ride".
Our union covers everything from Janitors to MDs, but we don't have to worry about them negotiating pay since it is set by law. Same with a lot of benefits for Title 38 employees. So our union gets to focus in stuff like parental leave, vacation requests, promotions, how leave is used, stuff that affects everyone. So thankfully I don't have the problem you have.
Sounds like you got a raw deal, but I don't think that undermines the basic benefits of unions for unskilled labour. I find it odd that, as skilled labour, you were expected to be in a union at all.
Even factoring in the union dues, unskilled labour in Right to Work states make less than the same in union states. It is to the workers benefit to be in a union, even if they're so short-sighted as to not understand what they get from it.
But, of course, corporations aren't interested in the workers anymore, only the shareholders, so when they can relocate to right-to-work states, they do. And that ends up costing jobs in the union states. The workers in the Right to Work states essentially say that they'd rather have lower-paying jobs in their state than higher paying jobs in someone else's state.
Just another example of how the powerful interests manage to divide labour against itself for their own good.
Redbeard wrote: Sounds like you got a raw deal, but I don't think that undermines the basic benefits of unions for unskilled labour. I find it odd that, as skilled labour, you were expected to be in a union at all.
You can't work for public education pretty much anywhere in the US without being represented by a union from what I can tell. Except administrators, they have no union.
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"
Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"
Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.
That's actually a great example, I'll have to use that .
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"
Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.
They should only be formed spontaneously when a problem arises, workers form the union, engage in negotiations for better X, and once the situation is resolved the union disbands.
Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." .
While this is still a good example, this is actually exactly how it worked at the time the Constitution was written. There is a much stronger constitutional ground for the United States Postal Service than there is for a permanent standing US army - the founders were quite distrustful of a armed force.
It's so obviously not workable in modern society I think we all politely look the other way on that, though.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Are you being purposely obtuse or do you not get it? I'd really like to know.
I hope the subsequent discussion answered that question to your satisfaction.
I was surprised that people in the US had no idea aboutr penalty rate- especially you nkelsch :/
Penalty rates are just renumeration for working gak time. It all comes off the 5 day week so all businesses are trying to kill it. Work saturday 1.25% work sunday 1.75% and so on, depending on how good your union is. I've worked a lot of time in hospitality and penalty rates should be mandatory, the life you give up to get gak wages should be paid for.
I was surprised that people in the US had no idea aboutr penalty rate- especially you nkelsch :/
Penalty rates are just renumeration for working gak time. It all comes off the 5 day week so all businesses are trying to kill it. Work saturday 1.25% work sunday 1.75% and so on, depending on how good your union is. I've worked a lot of time in hospitality and penalty rates should be mandatory, the life you give up to get gak wages should be paid for.
This sounds very similar to Overtime and Time and a half.
Bullockist wrote: I was surprised that people in the US had no idea aboutr penalty rate- especially you nkelsch :/
Penalty rates are just renumeration for working gak time. It all comes off the 5 day week so all businesses are trying to kill it. Work saturday 1.25% work sunday 1.75% and so on, depending on how good your union is. I've worked a lot of time in hospitality and penalty rates should be mandatory, the life you give up to get gak wages should be paid for.
to expand upon what D and Sasori said; we don't have penalty rates in the US. We have 2 sort of similar things:
Non-exempt employees, hourly guys (i.e, non management people) are required to be paid 150% of their hourly rate for ever hour worked per week in excess of 40 hours. 7.25 bucks an hour for 40 hours, 10.87 for the 41st hour up.
Exempt (non-hourly employees, typically contactors, management types) are salaried and do not receive overtime.
That's all the law requires. Some companies will also pay differentials, which are similar to what you describe: extra pay per hour for working third shift, or holidays, or for being bilingual, sometimes. In my (limited) experience these are not very common outside of manufacturing and not required there or anywhere else.
In addition, although this is not required, typically all 40 hour a week employees are considered full-time, and thus eligible for benefits if the employer provides them. This is why people in the lousiest industries (fast food, Walmart) will generally have their hours per week capped at 32 or so hours.
Finally, just to cover all the basic things an Australian might not know about American employment law, people who work in the service industry (wait staff, waiters etc - tipped employees) are paid differently. They are federally required to get $2.13 per hour and they keep tips, as long as the tips plus the base pay accrue to at least minimum wage. In other words, if they wind up working 10 hours and tips only come up to $50, management must instead pay them minimum wage ($72.50 I think now, for 10 hours), but if they make $150 in tips, they keep the $150 + the $21.30 base wage..
Individual states may require greater than anything above, but that's the federally required baseline.
Ouze wrote: That's all the law requires. Some companies will also pay differentials, which are similar to what you describe: extra pay per hour for working third shift, or holidays, or for being bilingual, sometimes. In my (limited) experience these are not very common outside of manufacturing and not required there or anywhere else.
A lot of construction trade unions go above and beyond what the law requires.
In my union (Steamfitters Local 602) we receive time and a half (150% of our base wage) for anything worked over 40 hours until we reach 60 hours. We then receive double time (200% base wage) for everything after the 61st hour. We also get +15% pay differential for any work done outside of our "normal work hours" for longer than two working weeks (i.e.- working night shift). Saturday is automatic time and a half and Sunday is automatic double time (if you have at least 40 hours worked that week). We have nine paid holidays and if we work on said holidays, we receive 8 hours of straight time plus time and half for any hours worked (so working an 8 hour day is equal to 8 hours of double time and a half).
Of course there are various stipulations on all of this and we also have a Supplemental Service Agreement (which I currently work under) that affects members that work for service companies as opposed to construction work. Those overtime rules are different based on the nature of service-oriented work (they have things like stand-by time and being on call to make emergency service repairs; things that construction workers do not have to typically deal with).
Try applying that argument to anything else that requires expertise and coordination. The military for instance. "We're not at war, so disband the military." Time passes. "Oh snap! We're under attack! Collect and train a defense force on the double!"
Clearly there are issues with this correlation, but it's unrealistic to expect an organization to be effective if it has to completely demobilize/remobilize constantly.
Except that this is in essence, what does happen in between wars in the US. Sure the military isn't completely disbanded (as there's equipment that still needs to be maintained, etc.) but enough people are put out that it may as well have been. If you look at the history of the US military, you'll see it happen every single time we kick ass..
Come on, lets not be hyperbolic. Yes, there are defense cuts in peacetime, as there should be, but saying "it might as well be dismantled"?
Here's military spending since WW2:
Djones said in another thread that he saw budget cuts of 20 billion since 2009 (he didn't specify details as to how far they went or to whom). For perspective, tes, that's a lot of money, but if you have 600 bucks, and you decide to save twenty somewhere, lets not pretend the other 580 isn't still a massive, incredible, unbelievable number, more than China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, and South Korea... combined.
yourself."
