4 ms·

Collective agreement is a floor. It is a contract which guarantees lower bounds on wages, vacation days, notice periods etc. There is nothing preventing a compa

by Tryk 3y ago

Collective agreement is a floor. It is a contract which guarantees lower bounds on wages, vacation days, notice periods etc. There is nothing preventing a company from going beyond the collective agreement to provide additional benefits to their employees. For instance, Sweden does not have a minimum wage. Instead we have collective agreements which stipulate these issues.

adventured 3y ago
So why doesn't Sweden simplify their labor market by figuring out a reasonable lower boundary on collective agreements and installing a minimum wage? That seems particularly backwards on their part as a system failure. It would simplify their economy, remove inefficiency and benefit everyone - the sole possible arguments against it would require one being in favor of inefficient bureaucracy or abusing workers with lower wages. If you install a reasonable minimum wage, it increases the freedom in the labor market by reducing the chains of collective agreements. It gives employees more options, flexibility, and power of self determination which can only be to their benefit.
- alphager 3y ago
  There's no reasonable minimum wage. A minimum wage that would be appropriate for restaurants is nonsensical for electricians. The swedish model basically sets minimum wage by sector. Much more tailored to the employers and employees.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The swedish model basically sets minimum wage by sector. Much more tailored to the employers and employees. But this is the same argument for why there shouldn't be one at all. One of the major problems with the minimum wage in the US is that it de facto destroys training programs for entry-level employees. You could go to a school and pay them money to be trained or go to Walmart and do unskilled labor for low wages. But if you want to go to an employer and spend 40 hours there of which half is working and half is learning, what's the appropriate wage for that? You might very well should be paying them -- they're getting as yet still unskilled labor and you're getting qualified to do a job that would ultimately pay above-median wages that you might otherwise pay $30,000/year in tuition for. Taking that deal with them paying you $2/hour could be a bargain. But not if it's prohibited by law. Meanwhile someone could then offer $2/hour for an ordinary job, but who is going to take them up on that for no countervailing benefit when other employers pay more? It's the same reason 98% of people are paid more than the existing minimum wage despite no legal requirement to do so.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      And this is exactly why economists wouldn't have a minimum wage in their economic utopia.

by Tryk 3y ago

adventured 3y ago

So why doesn't Sweden simplify their labor market by figuring out a reasonable lower boundary on collective agreements and installing a minimum wage? That seems particularly backwards on their part as a system failure. It would simplify their economy, remove inefficiency and benefit everyone - the sole possible arguments against it would require one being in favor of inefficient bureaucracy or abusing workers with lower wages. If you install a reasonable minimum wage, it increases the freedom in the labor market by reducing the chains of collective agreements. It gives employees more options, flexibility, and power of self determination which can only be to their benefit.

alphager 3y ago
There's no reasonable minimum wage. A minimum wage that would be appropriate for restaurants is nonsensical for electricians. The swedish model basically sets minimum wage by sector. Much more tailored to the employers and employees.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The swedish model basically sets minimum wage by sector. Much more tailored to the employers and employees. But this is the same argument for why there shouldn't be one at all. One of the major problems with the minimum wage in the US is that it de facto destroys training programs for entry-level employees. You could go to a school and pay them money to be trained or go to Walmart and do unskilled labor for low wages. But if you want to go to an employer and spend 40 hours there of which half is working and half is learning, what's the appropriate wage for that? You might very well should be paying them -- they're getting as yet still unskilled labor and you're getting qualified to do a job that would ultimately pay above-median wages that you might otherwise pay $30,000/year in tuition for. Taking that deal with them paying you $2/hour could be a bargain. But not if it's prohibited by law. Meanwhile someone could then offer $2/hour for an ordinary job, but who is going to take them up on that for no countervailing benefit when other employers pay more? It's the same reason 98% of people are paid more than the existing minimum wage despite no legal requirement to do so.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    And this is exactly why economists wouldn't have a minimum wage in their economic utopia.