4 ms·

Why do you say there's "no particular solution" when the NLRB did offer a particular solution, in the decision linked to by this WaPo article? Moreover, that s

• blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Sorry to disagree, but legislating a right-to-strike relationship with a company that is once-removed is not a solution; it's just a concession to a union demand that temp/contract workers be paid more money. The net result will undoubtedly be much higher prices for goods and services, and a number of start-ups will either fail, or be forced to downsize. Regarding McDonald's in Denmark: do they operate on a franchise basis there as in the U.S., or are the stores directly owned and operated by corporate McDonald's? What kind of prices are there on the foods they sell? I didn't say it was impossible to make a profit at $20/hour; I DID say I'd love to see it, and I'd like an explanation of how it would be competitive in the U.S. economy. In Denmark, $20/hour is not the same as $20/hour in the U.S., because Danish income tax is 55.6%. Also, they have a VAT of 25% on most goods and services (not sure if it applies to fast food). Thus, that $20 is really closer to $10 or $15 in U.S. purchasing power parity terms.
  • dalke 11y ago
    "with a company that is once-removed" The NLRB decision is very careful to argue that there is a 'joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act', which is different from your statement that this is a 'once-removed' case. Where do you disagree with their decision? Where is the case law to back your belief? Because they insist that the case law is in their favor and instead that for the last few decades: > the Board, without explanation, has since imposed additional requirements for finding joint-employer status, which have no clear basis in the Third Circuit’s decision, in the common law, or in the text or policies of the Act. The Board has never articulated how these additional requirements are compelled by the Act or by the common- law definition of the employment relationship. They appear inconsistent with prior case law that has not been expressly overruled. I take it then that you have not read the decision? It is the central topic at hand, and my quotes from the document, which directly counter comments you made, suggest that you are arguing at this point from ignorance of the actual subject. " do they operate on a franchise basis there as in the U.S" I gave you three links. They covered most of not all of the issues you just raised, including comparisons between the different economies. I also pointed out that there are a lot of articles on this specific topic. What additional questions do you have that are not addressed by those links? One of the links says: > According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the average tax burden in Denmark is 38.2 percent, while in America, it is 31.3 percent. So taxes are about a fifth higher. Most people, if given the choice, would accept a 20 percent hike in taxes in exchange for making twice as much. which tells me that your analysis ("that $20 is really closer to $10 or $15 in") is simply incorrect. At this point I've concluded that you don't actually care about the topic, other than to defend personal beliefs, which appear to be anti-labor.
    • blisterpeanuts 11y ago
      I've mainly asked questions and challenged some of these glib conclusions people like you are jumping to, and you just reflexively accuse me of an anti-labor stance. This reveals more about your own ideology than anything else. I notice you didn't actually address my points, but hid behind the "I posted links, why can't you read them" strawman, and then made a weak argument about the "average tax burden" that in no way counters the fact that Danes pay a much higher income tax. In fact, Denmark's PPP is far higher than the US's, about 7.6 to 1. In other words it costs $7.6 to buy the same unit of goods and services in Denmark as it costs $1 in the U.S. http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-charts http://knoema.com/nwnfkne/world-gdp-ranking-2015-data-and-ch... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP/countries/1W-DK?display=default http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP/countries/1W-... The article is about the NLRB's decision to define an employer's employer as obligated to deal with employees and contractors under existing organizing rules. Thus, McDonald's corporate becomes the direct employer of workers at a franchise, and there are implications for Uber drivers as well whom the Teamsters are trying to define as employees of Uber (thus raising Uber's employee count to over 100,000). To me, this is "once removed" relationship. What else can it be, and why else would they do it other than to expose the contracting/franchising corporate entity to unionization?