Minimum Wage questions

[Humus]

There's just no way I can take this "logic" seriously. If you don't think that business owners do anything and everything in their power to increase their efficiencies, you're just silly.

Like in my Ericsson example ... ?
I think it's silly to think that business owner do "anything and everything" to improve efficiency at all times regardless of the current situation of the company. Seriously, it's typically more like how you handle your own wallet. When you're low on money you're less likely to buy that new HD that you maybe didn't really need than if you have good margins. A company that has a large surplus is more likely to spend a good deal of money on for instance sending people all over the place meeting other business contacts, which may indeed be good for business, but once you get tight on money you start to realize you don't need to meet that guy in China every other week, maybe you can just keep contact over email and meet less frequently? Businesses spends loads of money on things that aren't really needed.

 

[Humus]

Now you just talked in a complete circle. You argued that only when wages are increased do employers spend resources on increasing efficiency. I argued that they do it ALL THE TIME, a point that you just agreed with... This last post makes me think that you've agreed with me all along... Which is it, Humus?

I never agreed with that. I have always argued that increasing efficiency comes when there's a motivation to increase it. Not "all the time", which I contrary to you think is quite silly to believe and the Ericsson example I mentioned earlier kinda proves my point. This aint no insignificant employer or special case, but rather shows how things way too often work.

 

[indio]

I think you mistook my statement First of all the reason ppl. quit was the work was too demanding for them to stay at the pay rate which was 13.50 /hr 2 years ago.

That implies then one of two things, or both:

1) that there are plenty of people lined up willing to do the job for the pay that was offered
2) That the job doesn't entail any special or unique skill that is not in plentiful supply, and is therefore easily replaceable

How the hell did you get this idea if ppl. are quiting constantly? New employees quiting constantly means there is high turnover. I said quit not fired!

It isn't skilled labor in a technical sense is skilled in the "not get yourslelf injured or killed " Which is a skill. I went through 20 safety training hours per month. Ther are so many ways to get hurt it's endless. From not getting hit by cars , to identifying hazardous material , getting stabbed with syringes , correct lifting techiniques etc.. The amount of hazards of is extensive and I saw a significant amount happen regularly despite CONSTANT safety training. I doubt you could handle it for a second , saying picking up trash is unskilled labor is like saying running the marathon is unskilled labor. I picked up on average 4 tons an hour for 12 hours straight with 2 half hour breaks to empty the truck. Do the math it's more than 100 per minute . It is a streanous athletic event daily and a mistake costs a limb not a medal.

I no longer work for them thank the lord. I'm not saying the pay was crappy . I'm saying the pay was not proportionate to the job duties. Which is what I think was the actual point of the thread.

Responsibilities mean wife and kids , it's not really feasible to just get up and leave a job (I left because of repetive motion injury , as if that's a surprise nearly 2 years latter i'm still in pain). It's also not easy to look for other employment when you goto work at 6:30 AM and get out at 6:30 PM and you consider that early.

I didn't even go into the contridictory catch 22 rules at the company.
Unions level the playing field between greedy companies . Have you been in a union? If not don't knock it till you try it.

 

[Willmeister]

You argued that only when wages are increased do employers spend resources on increasing efficiency.

They only attempt to increase efficiency when it's profitable to do so and this becomes more the norm the larger the bureaucracy becomes. There are instances where companies will not increase efficiency. I know personally of a good example of that. Efficiency maybe central to modern bureaucratic method, but it's seperable from profit.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Willmeister,

Sounds like you had everything going for you.

Well, I was living alone working for money to go back to school. I got an apartment, wanted to sign a 4 month lease, but they said don't worry you can just sign 1 month before 4 months is up. In my youthfulness I didn't press the matter. My girlfriend lied to me and told me I was a father. I got sick, went to the doctor about my throat as it was all puffy. Ends up I was hospitalized that day, and they saved my life the next day. (RaR!). I have a cool scare running across my thought for about 5" to 6". While I was in the hospital, I was didn't go in and give my 1 month notice. I was therefore stuck with an extra month's rent, and I was already broke. I picked myself up and went back to school but not in the semester I had planed or hoped.

So what are your thoughts? Do you think I had everything going for me? Do you think I had an easy life and everything just fell my way and that I cannot understand that life can be hard? No comment at all? Do you just think that I have no clue about the real world or maybe do you think I am on to something?

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[pax]

Cover I understand the push it would have for some wage earners now at 10-12 would need to be upped to 13-15 or so but for most biz thats not really a prob in terms of remaining profitable. Case in point you said your biz was low margin but what is the gross income per employee of your
biz? In the 50's average worker brough 50% more to the table than he cost. Nowadays its 400%...

Also I dont think keeping workers at 10-12 MW if you guys cant go up is necessarily going to become that much more of a prob. If working conditions and benefits ect.. are good and the work is interesting many more might stay on than you think even if MW goes up.

Had this one guy tell me he couldnt afford to deal me a pc as his margins were so damn low he couldnt afford it blah blah... then he thought of me as a potential new partner in the computer store he ran with this other guy who wanted ot get out of his deal and he opened up the books... he was making bout 150g on 500g gross sales... not too shaby considering they only had one employee other then the 2 co-owner operaters... This is a puter\sat tv shop and he was selling me half share into the puter side only.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think you mistook my statement First of all the reason ppl. quit was the work was too demanding for them to stay at the pay rate which was 13.50 /hr 2 years ago.

No, I uderstood perfectly.

How the hell did you get this idea if ppl. are quiting constantly?

If BFI is still in business, then not only did people quit, but people were also hired willingly to take their place. It's simple.

New employees quiting constantly means there is high turnover. I said quit not fired!

Right. Turnover = employee leaves PLUS new employee gets hired.

If there's not enough people attracted to the job for the pay, then people can't get hired.

If BFI can stay in business with a high turnover, that means there is plentiful labor to choose from, and that training is minimal to get the job done. That is, a "commoddity" type job if you will.

I went through 20 safety training hours per month.

So BFI did spend the money for training, then.

Ther are so many ways to get hurt it's endless....

I can see that.

I doubt you could handle it for a second...

I bet I could handle it as well as anyone else given minimal training.

saying picking up trash is unskilled labor is like saying running the marathon is unskilled labor.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

I picked up on average 4 tons an hour for 12 hours straight with 2 half hour breaks to empty the truck. Do the math it's more than 100 per minute . It is a streanous athletic event daily and a mistake costs a limb not a medal.

Great...then if so "few" people can do it...why is there apparently no trouble hiring the next guy off the street...and why is he willing to undertake the job for such "menial" pay?

I no longer work for them thank the lord. I'm not saying the pay was crappy . I'm saying the pay was not proportionate to the job duties. Which is what I think was the actual point of the thread.

Why did you stay at a job where you weren't getting paid "your worth?"

Responsibilities mean wife and kids , it's not really feasible to just get up and leave a job..

So who got married and had kids, which put yourself in some position that you felt trapped wrt finances and/or time?

And yes, it is feasible to just get up and leave a job, provided you have marketable skills to get another job. Did you not train yourself with marketable skills before you got married and had kids?

Then don't complain when your past choices make your life more "difficult."

Getting married and having kids is wonderful. I personally sacrificed both until a later stage in my life (30+ years old), so I could be more secure in my finances and not put myself in the very position that you were in.

I'm not saying that "my way is the right way." I'm saying that we all make our own choices and our own sacrifices, and we all have to deal with them.

Assuming you got married and had kids at a younger age then me, then in all likilihood you will get to cherish them longer on this earth than I will mine. That's my sacrifice.

Have you been in a union? If not don't knock it till you try it.

Yes, I have been. I was a cashier / stock-boy at a supermarket that was unionized. Meh.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Humus,

It's encouraging to hear these wonderful stories about people who despite having everything against them were able to rise from the dirt and succeed. Unfortunately, they are the exception rather than the rule.

Yes I agree. I think we need to help people believe more in themselves. I think we need to instill in them that that can do what they want to do in life if they are willing to work HARD for it. I would LOVE to see more work done in building people up, than propping them up with welfare.

Also, isn't it better with a system where you can get yourself up from the dirt easily than a system where you just can, though it's very hard for many people.

Ahh, a very interesting comment. You stated "While true, this arguments doesn't carry much weight for those who simply don't have the ability to make such an investment in the first place." I felt very passionate about the fact that there are many people that simply don't have the ability to help themselves. If you feel that it is not hopeless and that all people can make a better life for themselves, but that you would prefer to make it as easier for them for some cost, then I understand much better where you are coming from. Of coarse I don't with to hold people down, I want people to realize that they are the masters of their own destiny. They don't have to rely on someone else to succeed.

Again, I don't believe people when they say the poor are incapable of helping themselves. I don't believe don't believe people when they say that the poor have no hope of making a better life for themselves. I do not like words like can't.

I do however wish it to be as easy as possible for poor people to succeed, as I believe you do. I just don't think that we agree on how do get that done. I do not believe in giving money to people that don't work for it (unless they are going hungry). I believe in education and job skill programs. I believe in much better schools than we have today. Show them that there is hope.

The harder it is to get up, the fewer will get up. It's that simple.

Very true, but I feel if you really DO want it, you can have it.

What if the labor market changes btw? You may have made your decision to get wife and kids while you were attractive on the market. After a number of years your profession isn't asked for anymore.

This is called life my friend. There are no guarantees. This almost happened to my father as his R&D lab moved down to Colorado from Indiana. He choose not to move (note, I did not say his family forced him not to move, big difference) and lost his year and years of service. He tried to get on at the only other placed that needed someone with his credentials in town, but was also said he would go work at a lumber store if needed. He was fortunate and got he good job. He did not blame anyone for loosing his job. He did not expect society to help him find a new similar job. If you told him that society was in some part responsible to find him a new job in his field he would look at you like you were an alien. He is a man, he is responsible for himself and his family. (The same could be said for a woman, but my father is a man =p ). The point is he is responsible for himself, not society.

Is it good to have me more or less forced to work really hard for a long time to get up, rather than having the society aiding me in getting up and later on back as a productive worker?

Another very good comment. I think it highlights the difference between some of our thinking. (very cool stuff, if not a bit perplexing). If someone from society were to help out, then that would be a good thing, but it is in no way expected let alone required of a good society. It is just so very foreign to me to think that government has any responsibility to do so. I presume you are talking about more than an unemployment office that would just help me find a job.

Of course you are sacrificing loads of things when you decide to get kids and I've never said that this should not be the case. But it's definitely needed to ease parents situation to encourage more people to get kids. In Europe the expected length of life have increased to typically being around 80 years today, while in the US it is 73 IIRC. Consequently, the aging population poses a serious threat to the economy.

Wow, I had never once thought of it in that way (this is why I love discussing topics with people that think different than me, I stumble into new ways of thinking all the time.) Hmmm. Well, just a few thoughts off the top of my head. When I get old, I will be forced to keep working until I have enough money to retire on. (forced because I choose to make money to eat and pay bills). I don't really expect any handouts form the younger generations or the government to give me handouts, so I never thought that more children were needed.

We need more working people to carry the burden as these grow old.

How will I be a burden? I feel I am responsible for myself so therefore I need to take care of myself. Now, I do understand that many people today don't want to be responsible for themselves and I think that this needs to be changed somehow. I really don't have any good idea how to do that.

Anyway, I enjoyed your comments Humus.

Thanks for chatting,
Dr. Ffreeze

 

[indio]

I'm not complaining about life choice. I choose to do manual labor . I like it . I like being outdoors. I went to college. I have marketable skills . I choose to do something else that I am equally qualified for , that's called getting dirty and busting your ass and doing some heavy bullwork without whining. Which is a trait too few ppl. possess nowadays. I never said my life was difficult .

I am trying to contrast to situations for everyone.

One in which the latent greed of a corporation is under check in one instance and treats it's employees fairly.

And in the other instance when it is unchecked , abuses ppl. to the point they are understaffed by 50% and is unable to retain people for any significant length of time.


This is the same company exhibiting 2 separate policies because of the difference in Union and non-union labor.
My basic point is Unions ensure stability and fairness to body and spirit when it comes to heavy physical labor i.e. iron workers , masons , concrete workers etc. You are selling your PHYSICAL abilities and it is a limited resource. Without union protection , companies will undertake a policy of strip-mining ,and then the will move on to rape and pillage someone else.
That is the only point I'm and trying to make .

I wasn't complaining about my former predicament. I was trying to describe the drastic working conditions some companies will subject employees too to save a few hundred dollars a week. I did my best not to come off that way but it didn't work. :?


btw
Supermarket Unions are notoriously poor because there membership is weak due to the signicantly high numbers of seasonal and part-time workers.

edit sorry i just saw this part

Great...then if so "few" people can do it...why is there apparently no trouble hiring the next guy off the street...and why is he willing to undertake the job for such "menial" pay?

This is because it is sugar-coated during the interview . Do you think management would say
"This job sux and 1/2 the ppl. I hire quit within the first 6 hours! , Then you going to be rained on , snowed on, scorched by the sun and frozen to death , get maggots in your face ,as well as dogshit and puke all over you. All this is going to happen while little old ladies try to run you over in the street , while carrying trash bags of sharp metal and broken glass over sheets of ice. And that's a good day. "

They are like you and most other ppl. they don't really understand. Tommorrow take to two 2 1/2 gallon spring water containers pick them up fast-walk about 30 feet with them lift them till they are 4 ft. (about shoulder-level) off the ground then set them down do the entire process 3 times successively . Take a 30 second break then repeat the whole process repetitively for 12 hours . This is not an exaggeration it's actually an understatement.

 

[covermye]

They only attempt to increase efficiency when it's profitable to do so and this becomes more the norm the larger the bureaucracy becomes. There are instances where companies will not increase efficiency. I know personally of a good example of that. Efficiency maybe central to modern bureaucratic method, but it's seperable from profit.

Agreed. Efficiency, as I measure it, is this: how much does it cost me per widget to make these particular widgets? How can I lower my cost per widget (hence increasing my efficiency).

The original (flawed) argument was that businesses only increase efficiency when forced to do so after their margins are eroded due to something like larger labor costs, and that the business had no motivation to do so before the labor costs increased. That just makes no sense. If I can improve my margins, I'm going to do it today, plain and simple. If my margins erode due to substantially higher labor costs, I'll have LESS MONEY to invest in new technologies (read: efficiency)... making me LESS ABLE to increase my efficiency. So the statement, "They only attempt to increase efficiency when it's profitable to do so" is obviously correct. Who would argue with that?

How can you define efficiency when you say that in some cases it becomes LESS PROFITABLE to INCREASE EFFICIENCY? I just can't get past that part. Let's go over it again: Efficiency of a manufacturing operation, in my definition, is measured by cost per unit. If you lower your cost per unit, how can it ever be unprofitable to do so in a macro sense?

My head's spinning trying to understand this logic...

 

[pax]

Is it that hard to borrow or have an ipo to get $ to increase efficiency if you are profitable? I really dont see how whether you have 15% return on investment or 20% will make that much a issue of adding or removing a cies ability to invest... Also the idea of better wages is for higher consumption. This means more of a profit on volume system than per item than we have now.

 

[Sabastian]

"INCREASE EFFICIENCY" often results in a cut of hours worked?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'm not complaining about life choice.

But you are. You are complaining that you are "stuck" in a job the doesn't pay what you believe it's worth, because of some "responsibilities."

I choose to do manual labor . I like it . I like being outdoors.

And that's great. There's no rule, nor should there be, that what you like to do, is worth $X a year though. People make these sacrifices all the time.

Some people "do what they love", make little money, and are perfectly happy because doing what they love is more important than having money.

Some pople "hate going to work", make lots of money, and they are happy because "work" is something you do so that you can afford the things you "really want".

And some even make lots of money doing what they love. (These are the truly lucky.)

Again, there's no guarantees that what you "want" to do, will earn you enough money to be financially where you "want" to be. So there, you must make a choice...or look harder and find something where all your needs / wants are satisfied with no comprimises.

I went to college. I have marketable skills . I choose to do something else that I am equally qualified for , that's called getting dirty and busting your ass and doing some heavy bullwork without whining.

But you are whining.

You're whining about CEOs who make too much money. (Doing things that you, presumably, would hate to do, btw...certainly not getting "dirty" and doing heavy bullwork). You're whining that you don't get paid enough for your work.

One in which the latent greed of a corporation is under check in one instance and treats it's employees fairly.

Of course, "fair" is in the eyes of the beholder.

And in the other instance when it is unchecked , abuses ppl. to the point they are understaffed by 50% and is unable to retain people for any significant length of time.

If they are constantly understaffed by 50%, I hardly think they could remain in business.

My basic point is Unions ensure stability and fairness to body and spirit when it comes to heavy physical labor i.e. iron workers , masons , concrete workers etc.

IMO, unions are anything but fair. As a cashier, I resented the fact that the idiot next to me made much more in wages than I did...despite the fact that my "scanning percentage" (metric for cashier productivity), was consistently several factors higher. Why? Because she was "there longer."

You are selling your PHYSICAL abilities and it is a limited resource.

If it truly is limited, then your employer wouldn't be able to get away with "underpaying". If it was limited, there would be more than enough competition for that ability, such that you could chose your employer...the one with the best compensation package.

I wasn't complaining about my former predicament. I was trying to describe the drastic working conditions some companies will subject employees too to save a few hundred dollars a week. I did my best not to come off that way but it didn't work. :?

Again, saftey is another issue altogether. And as I said, I do see the value in Unions for protecting the physical safety of the workforce. This is only indirectly related to the whole issue of wages.

btw
Supermarket Unions are notoriously poor because there membership is weak due to the signicantly high numbers of seasonal and part-time workers.

But, you just told me the horrors of such large turn-around at BFI? Is that union "weak" as well?

edit sorry i just saw this part

This is because it is sugar-coated during the interview . Do you think management would say
"This job sux and 1/2 the ppl. I hire quit within the first 6 hours! , Then you going to be rained on , snowed on, scorched by the sun and frozen to death , get maggots in your face ,as well as dogshit and puke all over you. All this is going to happen while little old ladies try to run you over in the street , while carrying trash bags of sharp metal and broken glass over sheets of ice. And that's a good day. "

Of course not. It's the same with any other job. You are trying to sell yourself as much as they are trying to sell themselves to you.

They are like you and most other ppl. they don't really understand. Tommorrow take to two 2 1/2 gallon spring water containers pick them up fast-walk about 30 feet with them lift them till they are 4 ft. (about shoulder-level) off the ground then set them down do the entire process 3 times successively . Take a 30 second break then repeat the whole process repetitively for 12 hours . This is not an exaggeration it's actually an understatement.

I keep telling you that this is besides the point....but you don't listen.

If enough people can't do the job sufficiently such that demand for the qualified labor outstrips supply, wages will increase. They will have to in order to attract the "talent".

 

[Silent_One]

indio wrote:

My basic point is Unions ensure stability and fairness to body and spirit when it comes to heavy physical labor i.e. iron workers , masons , concrete workers etc. You are selling your PHYSICAL abilities and it is a limited resource. Without union protection , companies will undertake a policy of strip-mining ,and then the will move on to rape and pillage someone else.

I hope your not speaking of all non union companys in the building and construction trades. While I can't speak for the company you worked for I know of many companys whom don't abuse their employees in the construction trade.

 

[indio]

I think the problem were having here is your trying to compare an intellectual job to a labor job. It doesn't really work.
Anyone with an body can do a labor job so by definition nearly everyone is qualified. The rub happens with "How long can they do it?"

If it truly is limited, then your employer wouldn't be able to get away with "underpaying". If it was limited, there would be more than enough competition for that ability, such that you could chose your employer...the one with the best compensation package.

I was referring to "limited" from the view point of the bodies owner. Failure analysis can be applied to the human body . Moving parts can only move a limited numbers of times before failure. The length of time one can do physical labor is limited just like beauty . It is unethical to use ppl. up and spit them out. It's like when someone uses a tool improperly and breaks it , they should be held responsible for their abuse causing something to be broken.

IMO, unions are anything but fair. As a cashier, I resented the fact that the idiot next to me made much more in wages than I did...despite the fact that my "scanning percentage" (metric for cashier productivity), was consistently several factors higher. Why? Because she was "there longer."

Unions I've been in didn't work like that . Everyone got paid the same no matter what. Seniority only dictated who was first asked for OT. That is a perfect example of weak union. If the union doesn't treat every employee equally resentment festers, destroying the organization.

If they are constantly understaffed by 50%, I hardly think they could remain in business

That's because you don't understand how how the system in place worked.
They got paid by the tonage. They get paid they same amount no matter how few ppl. pick it up or how long it takes. To them , the fewer the better. What the hell do they care if you eat dinner at 10pm?

But, you just told me the horrors of such large turn-around at BFI? Is that union "weak" as well?

The large turn around was at the non-union BFI which is were the horror was. The unionized BFI was very stable work force with 4 ppl. that had been there over 30 years, shit you were considered a rookie for the first 5.
The longest at the other was 13 years. He was a driver though that drove around dropping off containers No laborer lasted more than 3 years which is as long as I lasted. The union BFI had 3 ppl. that had been laborers for 20+ years. A gigantic difference in enviroments.



Silent_One wrote:

I hope your not speaking of all non union companys in the building and construction trades. While I can't speak for the company you worked for I know of many companys whom don't abuse their employees in the construction trade.

I'm not trying to say all companies that are non-union are POS robber-barons. Good non-union companies have nothing to fear from unions . It is tough to organize a union . No one is going to put up the effort of forming a Union without good cause. Assuming this is true most companies that are union became that way out of a defensive reaction to mistreatment and should be supported.
Still there are very few non-union companies that match the wages and benefits of their union conterparts. Does that make a company bad or evil? Of course not.

Only wanted to share my difference of experiences between union and non-union divisions of the same company.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think the problem were having here is your trying to compare an intellectual job to a labor job. It doesn't really work.
Anyone with an body can do a labor job so by definition nearly everyone is qualified. The rub happens with "How long can they do it?"

I actually don't think so.

I do understand what you're saying, but "burn out" is also a very real concern with "intellectual" jobs. A different kind of "burn out" to be sure, but the effect is the same: you can be pushed "too hard" that you just give up the "will" (ability) to keep going.

Unions I've been in didn't work like that . Everyone got paid the same no matter what. Seniority only dictated who was first asked for OT. That is a perfect example of weak union. If the union doesn't treat every employee equally resentment festers, destroying the organization.

So, teacher's unions are "weak" unions?

That's because you don't understand how how the system in place worked. They got paid by the tonage. They get paid they same amount no matter how few ppl. pick it up or how long it takes. To them , the fewer the better. What the hell do they care if you eat dinner at 10pm?

They won't...if you keep going back for more. The same in white collar jobs.

You said earlier that you "all got paid the same". Does that mean the guy not "pulling his weight" gets paid the same as you? You don't resent that?

The longest at the other was 13 years. He was a driver though that drove around dropping off containers

You seem to resent that driver having it "easier" than you, and probably getting paid the same or more....hmmmm....

No laborer lasted more than 3 years which is as long as I lasted. The union BFI had 3 ppl. that had been laborers for 20+ years. A gigantic difference in enviroments.

And how is that related to wages? Higher wages would have changed the "environment?"

(Again, remember that I agree that Unions have a legitimate role in ensuring the physical safety and well being of it's members.)

I'm not trying to say all companies that are non-union are POS robber-barons. Good non-union companies have nothing to fear from unions .

And to be clear, I don't think we're trying to say all unions are POS money-leachers either.

 

[Silent_One]

[I'm not trying to say all companies that are non-union are POS robber-barons.

Gald to hear that. Although when you said earlier...

To make a long story short , large corporations that require manual labor and are non-union will hire someone , run them into the ground until they become injured or quit, and then hire someone new.

.....I kind of wonder.....after all it would be crazy for any company to run someone "into the ground until they become injured..." After all Workmen's Compensation Insurance would skyrocket and eat them alive.

The length of time one can do physical labor is limited just like beauty . It is unethical to use ppl. up and spit them out. It's like when someone uses a tool improperly and breaks it , they should be held responsible for their abuse causing something to be broken.

I was a Laborer for 14 years. I worked my ass off. As a result of hard work and heavy lifting I needed back surgery, in which two disks that were ruptured were removed. I can no longer do laborers work. Like you I was trained in the proper way to lift heavy objects. Like you I went through extensive safety training. Should "they be held responsible for their abuse causing something to be broken"? No-this is the nature of the work, lifting heavy objects can wear you out and wore me out. Laborers health insurance paid for my surgery.

I was a garbageman. I worked in Boston and was in the Teamsters Union I made @ 51,000 / yr. regular 40 - 45 hour work weeks.
This is a good wage for hardwork.

And I thought teamsters were only drivers. Sounds like you need to hire Laborers, who know how to handle heavy work...

Unions I've been in didn't work like that . Everyone got paid the same no matter what. Seniority only dictated who was first asked for OT. That is a perfect example of weak union. If the union doesn't treat every employee equally resentment festers, destroying the organization.

Senority causes resentment among employees. This is a fact that I can personally attest too-although I am not a Teamster-my employees tell me so. Their not being treated equally. Hell, some drivers got overtime work even though their fellow "brother" did not even get his 40 hours in that week.....

IMHO you are so pro-union that your posts sound like a rally.....

 

[Humus]

Yes I agree. I think we need to help people believe more in themselves. I think we need to instill in them that that can do what they want to do in life if they are willing to work HARD for it. I would LOVE to see more work done in building people up, than propping them up with welfare.

Definitely. We don't want to just feed people, but we need to provide people the opportunities. It's like with kids in school. Everyone can get good grades with some effort. Some kids however need much more attention and support than others to get somewhere, something the teacher will have to accept. You can't rely too much on each kid's own ability to go forward, but on the other hand you can't just make the homework for the kid either. It may mean however that special arrangement will have to be made to make it easier for certain kids to grasp concepts that would otherwise be hard for them. Same in society. You don't want people to just live off others by simply paying money and not demand that they look for jobs or otherwise make an effort to go by themself. Some people need more support to go forward however. Providing the opportunity to educate themselves without putting an assload of burden on their shoulders is a good start. Education need not neccesarily be completely free, but there need to be enough support such that everyone has the ability to get the education they need. It may for instance be arranged so that the state may provide economical aid to student, perhaps through low interest state loans that may be used to pay the school and enough to get your daily bread. There is also an economical bonus, you get higher level of education and more skilled labor force as a whole. Without any arrangements to ease people's ability to get educated too many skilled and intelligent people get lost to burger flipping jobs when they could instead be researching and developing the latest and greatest technology.

Of coarse I don't with to hold people down, I want people to realize that they are the masters of their own destiny. They don't have to rely on someone else to succeed.

Again, I don't believe people when they say the poor are incapable of helping themselves. I don't believe don't believe people when they say that the poor have no hope of making a better life for themselves. I do not like words like can't.

True too, but still, there's for instance nothing keeping the continent of Africa to get up from the dirt and get things in shape either. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any directed actions from the west to help them get going. Instead, there's mutual benefits of doing so. I read an interesting article yesterday about a Swedish large scale aid program was arranged in Vietnam right after the war. Basically, roughly $1 billion was pumped into a projected aimed to build up some kind of local trade industry. So they spent many years educating loads of farmers in the area, built a top-modern paper production facility with all the steps represented from cuting down the tree to final notebooks and other paper products. In the 20 years thereafter this has changed the area from being mostly farming into a large economic engine driving the whole region and the economic standards have grown tremendeously. Basically, it's better to provide help than to just rely on people's own ability to go forward.

This is called life my friend. There are no guarantees.

But isn't it better to make the shitty parts of life less shitty or open ways around the shitty parts than just accept that life as it is. If we can improve people's situation, then go ahead. Not by just pushing money into people's pockets, but by opening door for their own success.

Wow, I had never once thought of it in that way (this is why I love discussing topics with people that think different than me, I stumble into new ways of thinking all the time.) Hmmm. Well, just a few thoughts off the top of my head. When I get old, I will be forced to keep working until I have enough money to retire on. (forced because I choose to make money to eat and pay bills). I don't really expect any handouts form the younger generations or the government to give me handouts, so I never thought that more children were needed.

How will I be a burden? I feel I am responsible for myself so therefore I need to take care of myself. Now, I do understand that many people today don't want to be responsible for themselves and I think that this needs to be changed somehow. I really don't have any good idea how to do that.

Well, the system in the US is different from that of Sweden and many other European countries I assume. Basically, when you retire you get a certain amount of money until your death from the state. The amount of money you receive is much dependent on how much you brought into the state through taxes through your working life. Long loyal working life => wealthy retirement and vice versa. Some money is also put off from your taxes into funds (which hopefully grows your money over time) which you can choose yourself or if you don't care let the state choose for you. So the economically educated may choose a fund he believes will bring more money.
Anyway, the money payed out to current retired people are payed by the current generation of working people. If the amount of old people grown high while the amount of children born goes down this will skew the system and paying all these retired people will significantly burden current working generation through taxes.

This is also just one reason why we should help people with kids. We also would want parents to have enough time and strength after the work to spend with their kids. It's not good for society to have parents not spending enough time with their kids.

 

[Humus]

The original (flawed) argument was that businesses only increase efficiency when forced to do so after their margins are eroded due to something like larger labor costs, and that the business had no motivation to do so before the labor costs increased. That just makes no sense. If I can improve my margins, I'm going to do it today, plain and simple. If my margins erode due to substantially higher labor costs, I'll have LESS MONEY to invest in new technologies (read: efficiency)... making me LESS ABLE to increase my efficiency.

Now you're interpreting my argument extremely. Increasing labor costs increase the motivation to look for efficiency improvements, not that it's the only factor there is or that there never are any motivation unless there's tight margins.

But your logic more or less means an economic predestination. Companies always look for better margins, no factors change this behavior, and this amount of effort is constant. By this wonderful logic you're presenting, that if you can improve your margins, you "do it today, plain and simple" and that higher labor costs just will reduce my ability to make said efficiency improvements a large company would always win over a small company. They have more resources to make improvements in efficiency, and thus would be more efficient than their newly started competitors. This is so obviously not the case in real life that it need not comment on. Large corporation are often overthrown after some time by a small starter-up. I suppose there's no such things as "resting on one's laurels" in the business world?

 

[indio]

Teamsters union includes "material movers".
Any union is only as good as the orginaztional structure and the members that put it in place. I am quite familiar with the laberors union. The members of the union make the rules for the union . If they don't like how it's run they can change it . It's a democracy, unlike a business.

No-this is the nature of the work, lifting heavy objects can wear you out and wore me out.

I know this. This goes directly to my point. You will be worn evetually , everyone will doing heavy labor. How fast or slow a company will wear you out and how they compensate you for wearing you out is the entire crux of the issue. In my experience , unions have done a good job at ensuring that the majority of members have a chance at making a career out of a job . Particularly jobs that there is a greater likely hood of destroying ones body.

When I say injuries I don't mean catastrophic injuries , I mean repetitive motion injuries like that are caused by job but not compensated for. Workmens Comp. doesn't pay for repetitive motion injuries , niether does disability insurance either long term or short term. This type of injury is what causes the most amount of work injuries. Not to mention , RMI lead to catastrophic injuries like yours because of nerve and muscle damage that causes slow loss of strength and coordination.

Senority causes resentment among employees. This is a fact that I can personally attest too-although I am not a Teamster-my employees tell me so. Their not being treated equally. Hell, some drivers got overtime work even though their fellow "brother" did not even get his 40 hours in that week.....

IMHO you are so pro-union that your posts sound like a rally...

Do you know what else causes resentment? Ass kissers and "company men" . Individuals that receive special treatment from the boss because the are drinking buddies or cousins or any other myriad of reasons.
There's a saying "The higher a monkey climbs the ladder the more he shows his ass." I'm sure your fully aware of "office politics".

One system is as arbitrary and capricious as the other but at least one is in writing and favors people that have the most resources invested in the union. As opposed to the other system , that favors whomever kisses the bosses ass the best which is an ever moving target.
That being said unions are as good as it's members . If someone didn't like the fact someone got overtime and he didn't get his 40 hours there is a grievance process . He could get the rules changed in a democratic process , which is 10 times easier than changing the rules as governed by a company.[/quote]