3 ms·

You know a nearly sure-fire way to make a higher salary? Be worth more to the company! I have never in my life seen a company tell a valuable (note: valuable t

You know a nearly sure-fire way to make a higher salary? Be worth more to the company! I have never in my life seen a company tell a valuable (note: valuable to a company is a person that is saving or making the company money, not just someone alive and willing to work) employee to go suck it, if they made a reasonable request for more money. Why in the world would anyone think that it is ok for everyone to "Just Make More Money" simply because they are in a group? Clearly in any group of employees, some will be more valuable to the company, and others less valuable. This is not a slight against the less valuable employees, just a fact of life. If you can accept that all employees are not perfectly identical in every way, then it stands to reason that the productive employees do have bargaining power. Their leverage is that they can leave. It would further stand to reason that less productive or easily replaceable (unskilled, untrained, etc.) employees would have less bargaining power, because of the fact that they can easily be replaced. With discrimination, minimum wages, OSHA, child labor, etc. already on the law books, why are people even talking seriously about unions these days? You example is a perfect demonstration of union mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of a firm, for what reason? Just because you are a group and can? You will notice that you actually being worth the extra $20k wasn't a prerequisite, only that you now have the power of a union to muscle it out of the employer.

Retra 12y ago
>You will notice that you actually being worth the extra $20k wasn't a prerequisite, only that you now have the power of a union to muscle it out of the employer. And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again. You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can? >With discrimination, minimum wages, OSHA, child labor, etc. already on the law books, why are people even talking seriously about unions these days? Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy. "With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?" See how absurd that sounds?
- mhuffman 12y ago
  > And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again. How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China? Why not enjoy the local "boon" of unions to your company? > You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can? First, I am for minimum national salaries (or hourly pay) for jobs based on description. Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company. The corporation is not "bullying" because the person can go work for another corporation (possibly today) in response to it, the union is bullying because the corporation can not hire the "other" workforce in response to it. You are falsely comparing the ability of a person to work with money, when you should be comparing that person's actual labor to money. > Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy. > "With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?" False equivalence. What new breakthrough in labor law might unions create comparable to the breakthroughs in science and medicine that NASA makes every week? Do you imagine that it might revert back to child labor? Shall we still have abolitionists for the USA? Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery? Unions had a useful purpose in our history. They might even be useful still, but existing to strong-arm companies (and that is what it is) is not useful to modern United States.
  - Retra 12y ago
    >How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China? What is your problem? Seriously. Labor WOULDN'T move overseas if unionized workers had any power. The labor moves over seas because those with the power decide where to move the labor, and it is decidedly NOT unions. >Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company. I made no such assumption. I only assumed that the worker should be able to negotiate their worth by using other employees as a resource for evaluating what that is. If all the other workers agree you are worth X, the company should pay X. The company should not be in charge of both determining what you are worth AND paying you, because they are likely to minimize both, no matter what reality has to say. The only reason you have competitive wages anywhere without unions is because companies compete against each other. And if they collude, you lose that. It doesn't matter what you are worth, only how much collusion is legal or accepted. >Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery? Do you know that the laws can be repealed? And that the people who would repeal them are the same people you're asking everyone to forfeit their political and economic power to? How do you expect a law to stay on the books if the only ones championing for it have their hands tied?

Retra 12y ago

>You will notice that you actually being worth the extra $20k wasn't a prerequisite, only that you now have the power of a union to muscle it out of the employer. And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again. You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can? >With discrimination, minimum wages, OSHA, child labor, etc. already on the law books, why are people even talking seriously about unions these days? Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy. "With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?" See how absurd that sounds?

mhuffman 12y ago
> And having more power makes you more valuable, because having powerful people work for you is a boon. So we're full circle again. How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China? Why not enjoy the local "boon" of unions to your company? > You example is a perfect demonstration of corporate mentality: As a group you want to bully an extra $20k out of an employee, for what reason? Just because you are a corporation and you can? First, I am for minimum national salaries (or hourly pay) for jobs based on description. Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company. The corporation is not "bullying" because the person can go work for another corporation (possibly today) in response to it, the union is bullying because the corporation can not hire the "other" workforce in response to it. You are falsely comparing the ability of a person to work with money, when you should be comparing that person's actual labor to money. > Maybe because unions caused those things to happen, dummy. > "With NASA putting men on the moon and building numerous technological advances, why are people even talking seriously about funding NASA these days?" False equivalence. What new breakthrough in labor law might unions create comparable to the breakthroughs in science and medicine that NASA makes every week? Do you imagine that it might revert back to child labor? Shall we still have abolitionists for the USA? Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery? Unions had a useful purpose in our history. They might even be useful still, but existing to strong-arm companies (and that is what it is) is not useful to modern United States.
- Retra 12y ago
  >How is this true? If it were true that having a powerful group work for you (powerful in the sense of collective negotiations) why would nearly all industry move to India and China? What is your problem? Seriously. Labor WOULDN'T move overseas if unionized workers had any power. The labor moves over seas because those with the power decide where to move the labor, and it is decidedly NOT unions. >Second, you are again just assuming that the fact that a person walks into a company and is willing to work that they are worth maximum money available from that company. I made no such assumption. I only assumed that the worker should be able to negotiate their worth by using other employees as a resource for evaluating what that is. If all the other workers agree you are worth X, the company should pay X. The company should not be in charge of both determining what you are worth AND paying you, because they are likely to minimize both, no matter what reality has to say. The only reason you have competitive wages anywhere without unions is because companies compete against each other. And if they collude, you lose that. It doesn't matter what you are worth, only how much collusion is legal or accepted. >Do you imagine that, since we have laws against it, that we might snap back into national slavery? Do you know that the laws can be repealed? And that the people who would repeal them are the same people you're asking everyone to forfeit their political and economic power to? How do you expect a law to stay on the books if the only ones championing for it have their hands tied?