6 ms·

> Wages aren't growing because people aren't worth more. Most job growth is in low-skill jobs. This is a silly, self-defeating argument. Wages aren't determin

> Wages aren't growing because people aren't worth more. Most job growth is in low-skill jobs. This is a silly, self-defeating argument. Wages aren't determined by "worth". Wages are dictated through negotiations, and they are set based on the worker's negotiating power. If a worker is incapable of negotiating, nor does he have negotiating power over their company's representatives, then he is bound to get the raw end of the deal. This is precisely where unions and worker's commissions play a central role in the problem. When an isolated worker tries to negotiate with the company, more often than not he faces professional negotiators skilled in cutting down salary expenses. The odds are, from the start, stacked against the worker's interests. This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, as they can provide professional services negotiating job offers and leverage more power over the company's representatives. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
If a union wants to negotiate, then you just move the manufacturing to a cheaper country. There is plenty of labor willing to work at a lower price, and that is what happened.
- have_faith 9y ago
  If the union was any good, they would negotiate a price that was better than the individual could get on their own but cheaper to the company than moving a whole factory half way across the world. There is a spectrum between the two extremes where negotiation should take place.
  - intended 9y ago
    Not really? I mean I know factories in India which have buildings with asbestos roofs. China has grizzly videos of workers moving metal scaffolding and then accidentally getting electrocuted as it moves into exposed high voltage cable. And that is still a step up from the misery there was before. I don't see how you can afford environmental protections, worker safety, when instead for a small fraction of the cost you can just send the request to a contractor, and then say "Oh we didn't know the conditions in the factory were bad. We thought those quaint third world concepts were just rumors! Oh those poor souls!".
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      It's going to depend on the widget. No matter how you cut it there's less overhead in those countries. Depending on the nature of the good and the scale it's almost impossible to have the price of the good be competitive when it gets to the first world. At high volume it's easy to amortize the cost cost of teaching a factory in overseas how to make for example a high quality forging that a first world supplier could produce properly the first time without asking questions. If you're gonna need to make a different forging every year then you might want a supplier closer to home that you don't have to hand hold. If you're making something with less safety/environmental overhead than the steel forging then that tips things less in favor of off-shoring.
    - geezerjay 9y ago
      > I mean I know factories in India which have buildings with asbestos roofs. And how much would your company be forced to pay and abdicate to relocate their headquarters to that asbestos-packed hell-hole? Do the company's middle and upper management tolerate the idea of moving to a different continent and be forced to live with inhumane infrastructures setup by inhumane and careless middle and upper management types? Not every job is a factory job or involves low-skilled grunt work. Not all companies are willing to lift the proverbial anchor and relocate to a different continent just because a job seeker has a trade union representative with him during negotiations.
  - PGenes 9y ago
    The cost of moving is relatively low compared to the cost of higher wager. The spectrum you suggest is vanishingly narrow.
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    I take it you haven't ever encountered high level union managers, not the sharpest crayons in my experience.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > If a union wants to negotiate, then you just move the manufacturing to a cheaper country. This is a disingenuous comment. Having a professional negotiation negotiating with a HR representative on behalf of the worker does not force a company to move their offices abroad. Moreover, moving a company somewhere else entails a heavy cost that more often than not the company is unable to pay. I don't understand why people assume that the worker force has to bend over repeatedly and perpetually, particularly when we are faced with stagnant wages in a time of low unemployment. This clearly shows that the job market is being manipulated to serve the interests of these corporations, in a time where high-skilled workers remain peddling for cash and without any job security.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    I’m not assuming anything. The “heavy cost” you are referring to is obviously not heavy compared to paying US wages and cost of regulations. The proof is the fact that everything you pick up in your room will probably say Made in china and your shirt will say Made in bangladesh.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It's not some law of nature though; that's the result of legal changes making it more appealing to offshore manufacturing.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > I don't understand why people assume that the worker force has to bend over repeatedly and perpetually At first I was going to correct you and say "bend over backwards" - then I realized you got it exactly right. Some of the high-skilled workers - on hn no less - will say "I'm better off negotiating the angle at which I bend for myself"
  - kesselvon 9y ago
    The workforce doesn't have to bend over, but there is an inequality in negotiations when the company threatens to ship the work to somewhere where they can pay workers a fraction, even if the quality will be shit. We don't exactly have a legal framework to prevent companies from doing this either
jasode 9y ago
>This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, [...]. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone. Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control. E.g. A $15/hour worker considering a union weighs the possibilities: a raise of wages to $20/hour or a reduction to $0/hour because there are no jobs at all. That's the complicated calculation. Union representation can negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement to raise wages but a union can't guarantee the existence of the jobs[1] to pay those wages. Many employees know this which is why they reject unions. UAW has tried to unionize workers at Toyota in Kentucky for decades and failed. Nissan workers in Mississippi just rejected a union vote last month. FedEx Freight drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania recently voted and decertified their union in July 2017 after voting for it in 2014. Some workers genuinely feel a union will make their economic lives worse. The unions' promises of better wages mean nothing if the plant closes and workers weigh that possibility when rejecting union representation. What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers? [1] examples: Seattle union can't stop Boeing from locating the new 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina with no unions. Steelworkers union in Indianapolis doesn't stop Rexnard from eliminating $25/hour jobs which cost more than $3/hour jobs in Mexico. Nabisco (Oreo cookies, etc) moves production to Mexico instead of keeping the higher wage union jobs in Chicago. The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  If you're interested in the topic, Jane McAlevey, a labor organizer, has done a lot of interviews (and written a book I haven't read) detailing her theories of why unions have become less effective and less appealing to workers, as well as what she thinks they can do.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  And in states with robust worker protection laws the benefits of a union are less valuable.
- geezerjay 9y ago
chrshawkes 9y ago
I think the previous comment makes a good point that most new jobs are at Starbucks, Target and Wal-Mart. There is no negotiation for typical hourly wages at these places. They pay the going rate and that's typically poverty level.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>The odds are, from the start, stacked against the worker's interests. If I negotiate a contract with a child for them to work for me, it is illegal because we realize the power difference between the average child and average adult is bad enough to justify banning child labor. Yet the power difference between trained negotiators and the average job seeker is as big a gap.
- Vektorweg 9y ago
  True. Also the employer often has leverage. There may be other candidates for the job. The job seeker may be in dire need of a job. Hardly a fair stand for any negotiations at all.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > The job seeker may be in dire need of a job. Hardly a fair stand for any negotiations at all. Precisely, and that job seeker may be completely oblivious to the fact that the employer may be offering 100 but actually pays 200 to all workers on similar positions within the company filled by less qualified people, and may have some urgency trying to fill the job opening. As the job seeker falls victim tho the information asymmetry, he proceeds to get screwed over and receive half of what he would otherwise get.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      https://www.glassdoor.com/ https://www.glassdoor.com/ I do like the trend towards enabling anonymous wage transparency here.
      - secabeen 9y ago
        Glassdoor is nice, but fully transparent non-anonymous salary data is even better: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/article2642161.html http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/arti...
tempVariable 9y ago
Exactly. The worth argument is a diversion and bait set out by hiring side. It is only in play when the employee is purely driven by performance, like in professional sport. That is also why sport personalities have agents. Just because regular business profits are several layers removed from a regular employee does not mean that there's no link to performance as well, but business usually does not like to share( raise salary ) to not set a precedent. I for one would love to have an professional agent that looked after me in return for good career progression. Even the rock starts among us know that it takes skill and luck to get paid what we are really worth

lotsofpulp 9y ago

If a union wants to negotiate, then you just move the manufacturing to a cheaper country. There is plenty of labor willing to work at a lower price, and that is what happened.

have_faith 9y ago
If the union was any good, they would negotiate a price that was better than the individual could get on their own but cheaper to the company than moving a whole factory half way across the world. There is a spectrum between the two extremes where negotiation should take place.
- intended 9y ago
  Not really? I mean I know factories in India which have buildings with asbestos roofs. China has grizzly videos of workers moving metal scaffolding and then accidentally getting electrocuted as it moves into exposed high voltage cable. And that is still a step up from the misery there was before. I don't see how you can afford environmental protections, worker safety, when instead for a small fraction of the cost you can just send the request to a contractor, and then say "Oh we didn't know the conditions in the factory were bad. We thought those quaint third world concepts were just rumors! Oh those poor souls!".
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    It's going to depend on the widget. No matter how you cut it there's less overhead in those countries. Depending on the nature of the good and the scale it's almost impossible to have the price of the good be competitive when it gets to the first world. At high volume it's easy to amortize the cost cost of teaching a factory in overseas how to make for example a high quality forging that a first world supplier could produce properly the first time without asking questions. If you're gonna need to make a different forging every year then you might want a supplier closer to home that you don't have to hand hold. If you're making something with less safety/environmental overhead than the steel forging then that tips things less in favor of off-shoring.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > I mean I know factories in India which have buildings with asbestos roofs. And how much would your company be forced to pay and abdicate to relocate their headquarters to that asbestos-packed hell-hole? Do the company's middle and upper management tolerate the idea of moving to a different continent and be forced to live with inhumane infrastructures setup by inhumane and careless middle and upper management types? Not every job is a factory job or involves low-skilled grunt work. Not all companies are willing to lift the proverbial anchor and relocate to a different continent just because a job seeker has a trade union representative with him during negotiations.
- PGenes 9y ago
  The cost of moving is relatively low compared to the cost of higher wager. The spectrum you suggest is vanishingly narrow.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  I take it you haven't ever encountered high level union managers, not the sharpest crayons in my experience.
geezerjay 9y ago
> If a union wants to negotiate, then you just move the manufacturing to a cheaper country. This is a disingenuous comment. Having a professional negotiation negotiating with a HR representative on behalf of the worker does not force a company to move their offices abroad. Moreover, moving a company somewhere else entails a heavy cost that more often than not the company is unable to pay. I don't understand why people assume that the worker force has to bend over repeatedly and perpetually, particularly when we are faced with stagnant wages in a time of low unemployment. This clearly shows that the job market is being manipulated to serve the interests of these corporations, in a time where high-skilled workers remain peddling for cash and without any job security.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  I’m not assuming anything. The “heavy cost” you are referring to is obviously not heavy compared to paying US wages and cost of regulations. The proof is the fact that everything you pick up in your room will probably say Made in china and your shirt will say Made in bangladesh.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It's not some law of nature though; that's the result of legal changes making it more appealing to offshore manufacturing.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > I don't understand why people assume that the worker force has to bend over repeatedly and perpetually At first I was going to correct you and say "bend over backwards" - then I realized you got it exactly right. Some of the high-skilled workers - on hn no less - will say "I'm better off negotiating the angle at which I bend for myself"
- kesselvon 9y ago
  The workforce doesn't have to bend over, but there is an inequality in negotiations when the company threatens to ship the work to somewhere where they can pay workers a fraction, even if the quality will be shit. We don't exactly have a legal framework to prevent companies from doing this either

jasode 9y ago

>This problem is mitigated with the help of an organized worker force, [...]. Therefore are able to get much better deals than the average worker acting alone. Yes, that's the simplified happy ending for voting in a union but the reality is complicated by factors outside of the union's control. E.g. A $15/hour worker considering a union weighs the possibilities: a raise of wages to $20/hour or a reduction to $0/hour because there are no jobs at all. That's the complicated calculation. Union representation can negotiate a Collective Bargaining Agreement to raise wages but a union can't guarantee the existence of the jobs[1] to pay those wages. Many employees know this which is why they reject unions. UAW has tried to unionize workers at Toyota in Kentucky for decades and failed. Nissan workers in Mississippi just rejected a union vote last month. FedEx Freight drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania recently voted and decertified their union in July 2017 after voting for it in 2014. Some workers genuinely feel a union will make their economic lives worse. The unions' promises of better wages mean nothing if the plant closes and workers weigh that possibility when rejecting union representation. What arguments do we use to convince these people that they haven't already heard from pro-union organizers? [1] examples: Seattle union can't stop Boeing from locating the new 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina with no unions. Steelworkers union in Indianapolis doesn't stop Rexnard from eliminating $25/hour jobs which cost more than $3/hour jobs in Mexico. Nabisco (Oreo cookies, etc) moves production to Mexico instead of keeping the higher wage union jobs in Chicago. The common theme is that the fear of no jobs is not FUD nor a theoretical threat. Workers know it actually happens.

emodendroket 9y ago
If you're interested in the topic, Jane McAlevey, a labor organizer, has done a lot of interviews (and written a book I haven't read) detailing her theories of why unions have become less effective and less appealing to workers, as well as what she thinks they can do.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
And in states with robust worker protection laws the benefits of a union are less valuable.
geezerjay 9y ago

chrshawkes 9y ago

I think the previous comment makes a good point that most new jobs are at Starbucks, Target and Wal-Mart. There is no negotiation for typical hourly wages at these places. They pay the going rate and that's typically poverty level.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>The odds are, from the start, stacked against the worker's interests. If I negotiate a contract with a child for them to work for me, it is illegal because we realize the power difference between the average child and average adult is bad enough to justify banning child labor. Yet the power difference between trained negotiators and the average job seeker is as big a gap.

Vektorweg 9y ago
True. Also the employer often has leverage. There may be other candidates for the job. The job seeker may be in dire need of a job. Hardly a fair stand for any negotiations at all.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > The job seeker may be in dire need of a job. Hardly a fair stand for any negotiations at all. Precisely, and that job seeker may be completely oblivious to the fact that the employer may be offering 100 but actually pays 200 to all workers on similar positions within the company filled by less qualified people, and may have some urgency trying to fill the job opening. As the job seeker falls victim tho the information asymmetry, he proceeds to get screwed over and receive half of what he would otherwise get.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    https://www.glassdoor.com/ https://www.glassdoor.com/ I do like the trend towards enabling anonymous wage transparency here.
    - secabeen 9y ago
      Glassdoor is nice, but fully transparent non-anonymous salary data is even better: http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/article2642161.html http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/arti...

tempVariable 9y ago

Exactly. The worth argument is a diversion and bait set out by hiring side. It is only in play when the employee is purely driven by performance, like in professional sport. That is also why sport personalities have agents. Just because regular business profits are several layers removed from a regular employee does not mean that there's no link to performance as well, but business usually does not like to share( raise salary ) to not set a precedent. I for one would love to have an professional agent that looked after me in return for good career progression. Even the rock starts among us know that it takes skill and luck to get paid what we are really worth