3 ms·

What you’re sensing is that we’re very far apart on this issue, even down to some core assumptions. For example, an organization is not obligated to pay any par

What you’re sensing is that we’re very far apart on this issue, even down to some core assumptions. For example, an organization is not obligated to pay any particular individual an amount that you deem to be satisfactory to obviate the need for state welfare benefits, the mention of which in this context is a non sequitur.

salawat 3y ago
>For example, an organization is not obligated to pay any particular individual an amount... With you thusfar. Business is generally something engaged in by two individuals consisting of an exchange of value in good faith projected to leave both parties coming out ahead. >that you deem to be satisfactory to obviate the need for state welfare benefits... Specifically severed this to illustrate how little it takes to go from uncontroversial to "what are you on?" As an employer in the United States there is an implicit assumption you are engaging in business in good faith. This was part of the reason things like minimum wages ended up being a "Gentleman's Agreement" like affair. If you couldn't even keep up with Federal minimum wage, that reflected poorly on you as a business operator. >the mention of which in this context is a non sequitur. The mention thereof is far from a non-sequitur. Given that there is no dearth of evidence that the fact that places like Walmart and McD's have worker populations disproportionately represented in State Benefit's programs, up to and including HR supplied documentation on how to on ramp to said programs; that a preponderance of the evidence at least suggests at some level this is reflected in some aspect in the grand corporate calculus of "How do I get the most for the least?" When it becomes a part of your Corporate Strategy, we have issues. Outsourcing your workers living expenses to the American taxpayer is not acceptable. Deliberately paying people a wage so low, then handing them a "how-to" guide for food stamps is deliberately tilting your extraction of labor far more in your favor than the worker's, because you're turning around and telling the worker "Don't forget to file for <insert welfare program here> this month in your off time!" After all, I'm sure employees were not encouraged to engage in this activity on the clock. So you're absolutely right. I come from different priors. You should have your shit straight enough as an employer to keep your employees contributing to, instead of being doled out to from, the tax rolls. If you cannot do this, you should be strongly disincentivized from doing up to and including paying extra corporate tax to recover the costs of the people you're stiffing. Back to the original topic at hand. How does a Union try to "take over" a company? A Union can't by definition, because at that point, the company would be a co-op. The Union is fundamentally limited to acting as an extraction to divert value delegation in the counter management/investor direction. The Union still has no implicit control outside of "you do what you want, but this group of laborers is not playing ball unless..." and channeling it down through a handful of savvy, experienced, and one can only hope, good faith represeentatives. In no way shape or form does that line up with your contention that a union "takes over" which with it suggests taking possession of the assets and investments that make up the company.

salawat 3y ago

>For example, an organization is not obligated to pay any particular individual an amount... With you thusfar. Business is generally something engaged in by two individuals consisting of an exchange of value in good faith projected to leave both parties coming out ahead. >that you deem to be satisfactory to obviate the need for state welfare benefits... Specifically severed this to illustrate how little it takes to go from uncontroversial to "what are you on?" As an employer in the United States there is an implicit assumption you are engaging in business in good faith. This was part of the reason things like minimum wages ended up being a "Gentleman's Agreement" like affair. If you couldn't even keep up with Federal minimum wage, that reflected poorly on you as a business operator. >the mention of which in this context is a non sequitur. The mention thereof is far from a non-sequitur. Given that there is no dearth of evidence that the fact that places like Walmart and McD's have worker populations disproportionately represented in State Benefit's programs, up to and including HR supplied documentation on how to on ramp to said programs; that a preponderance of the evidence at least suggests at some level this is reflected in some aspect in the grand corporate calculus of "How do I get the most for the least?" When it becomes a part of your Corporate Strategy, we have issues. Outsourcing your workers living expenses to the American taxpayer is not acceptable. Deliberately paying people a wage so low, then handing them a "how-to" guide for food stamps is deliberately tilting your extraction of labor far more in your favor than the worker's, because you're turning around and telling the worker "Don't forget to file for <insert welfare program here> this month in your off time!" After all, I'm sure employees were not encouraged to engage in this activity on the clock. So you're absolutely right. I come from different priors. You should have your shit straight enough as an employer to keep your employees contributing to, instead of being doled out to from, the tax rolls. If you cannot do this, you should be strongly disincentivized from doing up to and including paying extra corporate tax to recover the costs of the people you're stiffing. Back to the original topic at hand. How does a Union try to "take over" a company? A Union can't by definition, because at that point, the company would be a co-op. The Union is fundamentally limited to acting as an extraction to divert value delegation in the counter management/investor direction. The Union still has no implicit control outside of "you do what you want, but this group of laborers is not playing ball unless..." and channeling it down through a handful of savvy, experienced, and one can only hope, good faith represeentatives. In no way shape or form does that line up with your contention that a union "takes over" which with it suggests taking possession of the assets and investments that make up the company.