Time to cut wages

[Tyr]

Well, you keep bringing them up, so I guess you have a serious problem there.



Its not the unions business to worry about the effects of others. Its not a charity, corporations also don't base their profits off a "Fair price", they base it off of what brings in the most money. I've never had a company send me a bill for lower than they can get away with because its a "just price". I don't know where you get this "just price" crap from.

I said BETTER price. Its a business here, this is capitalism, deal with it pinko.



actually yes, Unions have in the past accepted wage cuts when the alternative was the business collapse. They aren't stupid, they also aren't charities.

Businesses having a hard time paying dividends to shareholders don't elect sympathy from unions, and nor should they. No other supplier of any other component gives price breaks to a company unless the failure to do so will cost them money in the long run.

Unions are no different. Stop drawing imaginary differences between labour and other supplies.

Do me a favour, the next time you post crap. Ask if that applies to other supplies besides labour. Would yuo accept that behaviour from another supplier, like a company supplying a component part,

Or a grocer supplying a restaurant.

So when you start posting logic instead of "what if's" and could be, the nyou can understand the difference between an exhorbanit wage and what it does to the end product and get off your socialist worker platform and see the real market for what it is, not some union haven

You're reflection on a "union" has very little to do with what a union is today. IT basically holds a company up for hostage with the threat of a strike and can take industries such as the auto industry or employment such the longshoreman and force them shareholders into an untenable position. Pay the $70/hr or close your business.

So I guess, your're ok with that. Shut down the outo industry, close the ports and see how the economy fares.

Smart.. Brilliant...

 

[Spade]

As this is a thread on economics, I dusted off my Samuelson, and, lo!, on page 1932, a discussion on wages during a depression and/or recession. May I quote?

"Counterintuitive to most government and corporate thinking, rather than reducing wages during a recession or depression when consumption drops, production falters, and capital is scarce, it is unerringly preferable to increase wages to inject spending into a flagging economy, halt deflationary pressures, stimulate growth and production, and alleviate the hardships of unemployment, bankruptcies, closure of factories, and civil unrest (See historical documents from 2009 in Appendix A)."

A simple 67-word sentence from the economists' bible!

I will volunteer to receive an increase forthwith!

A pleasant New year to all my cousins, especially those from Kent State!

 

[mit]

That's a bassackwards way to look at it if you ask me. Sure, we all resent having to pay for people who choose not to work, but would you trade places with them? Are you eager to be homeless or in jail? I'm not. I'd rather work even if it means paying more than my fair share, whatever that is.

You missed a part "The Good are expected to pay and the Bad get our sympathy and money and it is distributed by a group of highly educated and well compensated administrators- Does this seem fair?

Compassion for your fellow man has be relegated to governments and social agencies - It is now a lucrative career to be in social service administration -
It use to be that if you were down on your luck - you went hat in hand to the church or municipality and were given a stipend usually in exchange for work - But apparently that is demeaning so now you get funds electronically wired to your bank account because you can not be trusted with cash?
If you were a never-do-well chances are you would get escorted out of time by the local constabulary
If you needed a place to stay there were boarding houses that offered a bed and a place to clean up at reasonable fees - (Almost impossible to have a boarding house legally now)
As far as decent friends go - Mr Madoff's friends thought he was a decent fellow until Madoff made $50 Billion of their money evaporate.

Social issues should be solved by the community - not some upper tier government

 

[mit]

As this is a thread on economics, I dusted off my Samuelson, and, lo!, on page 1932, a discussion on wages during a depression and/or recession. May I quote?

"Counterintuitive to most government and corporate thinking, rather than reducing wages during a recession or depression when consumption drops, production falters, and capital is scarce, it is unerringly preferable to increase wages to inject spending into a flagging economy, halt deflationary pressures, stimulate growth and production, and alleviate the hardships of unemployment, bankruptcies, closure of factories, and civil unrest (See historical documents from 2009 in Appendix A)."

A simple 67-word sentence from the economists' bible!

I will volunteer to receive an increase forthwith!

A pleasant New year to all my cousins, especially those from Kent State!

The trick is to get more product or services out the door for the same wage - It is called efficiency - An assembly line formerly had 2,000 workers on a line - today that line produces 40% more vehicles with between 800 and 1200 workers - There are just too many car plants - the new ones were built with subsidized funds from the same governments that are bailing them out. Obama and Harper should put a moratorium on new car plants and any subsidized factory or call centre - If the business can not make a good business plan without government funds then they should let the other factories that are already on the ground produce their wares.

 

[Francis2004]

Homeless people making 28 bucks an hour? - Actually - that is what it costs the government in BC according to the article below


B.C. taxpayers currently spend an average of $55,000 per year in health, corrections and social services for each of the estimated 11,750 homeless people in the province, according to a 2008 study by SFU's Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction. That's $644 million a year to maintain homelessness.

So now - why are we promoting cutting wages?

So are you suggesting we just do the Ralph Klein trick of buying them all a cheap Greyhound ticket back to Alberta and lower our cost of Social programs ?

The problem is not the wages as you point out but the Social Programs for those who are homeless per your statement..

Might I add that Vancouver is the most expensive city to live in ...

 

[Francis2004]

As this is a thread on economics, I dusted off my Samuelson, and, lo!, on page 1932, a discussion on wages during a depression and/or recession. May I quote?

"Counterintuitive to most government and corporate thinking, rather than reducing wages during a recession or depression when consumption drops, production falters, and capital is scarce, it is unerringly preferable to increase wages to inject spending into a flagging economy, halt deflationary pressures, stimulate growth and production, and alleviate the hardships of unemployment, bankruptcies, closure of factories, and civil unrest (See historical documents from 2009 in Appendix A)."

A simple 67-word sentence from the economists' bible!

I will volunteer to receive an increase forthwith!

A pleasant New year to all my cousins, especially those from Kent State!

Can I have you by my side on Jan 7th as I go thru my job review Don't forget your little "Samuelson"

 

[Zzarchov]

So when you start posting logic instead of "what if's" and could be, the nyou can understand the difference between an exhorbanit wage and what it does to the end product and get off your socialist worker platform and see the real market for what it is, not some union haven

Socialist worker Platform? This is capitalism, they have labour to sell and you want to buy labour. Deal with it.

You're reflection on a "union" has very little to do with what a union is today. IT basically holds a company up for hostage with the threat of a strike and can take industries such as the auto industry or employment such the longshoreman and force them shareholders into an untenable position. Pay the $70/hr or close your business.

Thats not untenable, either you make money or you don't. The unions control a critical component of your business model.

How is that different than paying any other supplier? You also have to pay waaay to farking much for alot of parts that go into making a car besides Labour.

Do you know how much you get hosed for PLC controllers? I know what the mark-up is, its pure greed because they know the companies have two options:

Pay the exhorbiant fees for $50 worth of stuff or close your business. Thats Capitalism.

The auto industries stay open because they are making money, even paying $70.

So what kind of a "capitalism" is it exactly that a person shouldn't receive $70 for something they can get $70 for?

What kind of Capitalism has people accepting a lower price than they could otherwise receive for a good? I'd LOVE to hear your answer to that one comrade.

So I guess, your're ok with that. Shut down the outo industry, close the ports and see how the economy fares.

Well then, if the Auto Industry was in an actual danger of collapse due to the rising costs of suppliers then I would bet you would see Labour Unions, Suppliers of Component Parts, Suppliers of Industrial Machinery in the like cutting some slack to maintain their profits.

When the Airlines risked actual collapse, sure enough, the unions lowered their prices. The market changed and the value of their goods dropped, so they took a lower amount of payment for them.

Capitalism. It doesn't mean rich men get to roll in money without having to work for it, it means Poor men can become Rich and Rich men can become poor, all based on Merit and Opportunity.

Smart.. Brilliant...

Well, if you want a state-controlled economy, telling people what they can and cannot earn as salaries, how they are and are not allowed to negotiate prices,

lets make sure that gets spread around and all corporations are state owned.

Then you can live in the communist paradise you preach.

 

[Tyr]

Socialist worker Platform? This is capitalism, they have labour to sell and you want to buy labour. Deal with it.



Thats not untenable, either you make money or you don't. The unions control a critical component of your business model.

How is that different than paying any other supplier? You also have to pay waaay to farking much for alot of parts that go into making a car besides Labour.

Do you know how much you get hosed for PLC controllers? I know what the mark-up is, its pure greed because they know the companies have two options:

Pay the exhorbiant fees for $50 worth of stuff or close your business. Thats Capitalism.

The auto industries stay open because they are making money, even paying $70.

So what kind of a "capitalism" is it exactly that a person shouldn't receive $70 for something they can get $70 for?

What kind of Capitalism has people accepting a lower price than they could otherwise receive for a good? I'd LOVE to hear your answer to that one comrade.



Well then, if the Auto Industry was in an actual danger of collapse due to the rising costs of suppliers then I would bet you would see Labour Unions, Suppliers of Component Parts, Suppliers of Industrial Machinery in the like cutting some slack to maintain their profits.

When the Airlines risked actual collapse, sure enough, the unions lowered their prices. The market changed and the value of their goods dropped, so they took a lower amount of payment for them.

Capitalism. It doesn't mean rich men get to roll in money without having to work for it, it means Poor men can become Rich and Rich men can become poor, all based on Merit and Opportunity.




Well, if you want a state-controlled economy, telling people what they can and cannot earn as salaries, how they are and are not allowed to negotiate prices,

lets make sure that gets spread around and all corporations are state owned.

Then you can live in the communist paradise you preach.

You still just don't get it. It's like trying to explain soap bubbles to a two yr old.

Keep believing in your workers paradise and marxism if it keeps you have and content

 

[Machjo]

Depending, there are alot of things an employer can and if allowed, will do to ensure you keep working for them for as little as possible.

I know of an employee who got an under the table "She's stealing" reference to keep her from getting a new job that paid better, instead keeping her in her existing job where the employer needed her. It got out, but not with enough proof to prove anything. Thats one of the incidents that got the employees to contact the CAW to try and unionize the place.

Its a mistaken logic that because you are essential you will be well compensated, there are other ways to keep essential supplies in place.

Now there are other ways that work well to lessen the need of unions in terms of fair compensation, some slavic countries make tax records public documents..when you know what all your coworkers are being paid to do your job, it becomes alot harder for employers to lowball employees with contract regulations preventing you from discussing your compensation.

Of course, if its simply too much work for you to do all this research and legal work, there is a solution! Just like corporations can have legal departments, you can hire a union to do the work for you! Just join and pay your dues!

If you really want to get rid of Unions, lets get rid of Corporations as well. If you want to run a business then you can't offload the liability to an imaginary person and keep the rewards.

By 'you're stealing', do you mean that the employer was secretly giving a bad reference to other employers?

I had a collegue experience that once. She asked he employer if she could use her as a reference. The employer gladly agreed. But then she found that she wasn't getting any work. So a friend put her through the steps. Nothing wrong with the CV. Nothing wrong with cloting or interview, and finally came the reference. The employer was giving a bad reference, so she sued. No big deal. She won and got wages from the employer until she got a new job. You don't need unions for this.

 

[Machjo]

As this is a thread on economics, I dusted off my Samuelson, and, lo!, on page 1932, a discussion on wages during a depression and/or recession. May I quote?

"Counterintuitive to most government and corporate thinking, rather than reducing wages during a recession or depression when consumption drops, production falters, and capital is scarce, it is unerringly preferable to increase wages to inject spending into a flagging economy, halt deflationary pressures, stimulate growth and production, and alleviate the hardships of unemployment, bankruptcies, closure of factories, and civil unrest (See historical documents from 2009 in Appendix A)."

A simple 67-word sentence from the economists' bible!

I will volunteer to receive an increase forthwith!

A pleasant New year to all my cousins, especially those from Kent State!

The problem with that is that if I'm an employer and raise wages but nobody else does, I'm in trouble.

So it's not up to the company itself to necessarily raise wagesunilaterally. That's beyond the company's own control. The government, however, does have means by which to put more money into the economy. This increased funding thus puts a stop to deflation. But this is a role for the government and businesses will follow. But if the government doesn't intervene, then companies have no choice but to drop prices.

 

[Machjo]

You still just don't get it. It's like trying to explain soap bubbles to a two yr old.

Keep believing in your workers paradise and marxism if it keeps you have and content

You're being a little harsh there. I don't like unions either, but I woudln't go so far as to call them marxist. Some are, some aren't.

 

[Zzarchov]

You still just don't get it. It's like trying to explain soap bubbles to a two yr old.

Keep believing in your workers paradise and marxism if it keeps you have and content

Im a capitalist, you believe in state controlled economy with the government telling people what to sell their resources for, and how they can bargain.

Just because you like being rich doesn't mean you are a capitalist, there is a reason the leaders of communist countries never went without.

You just want to be lazy and cut out one suppliers right to get the best price for their services.

 

[Zzarchov]

By 'you're stealing', do you mean that the employer was secretly giving a bad reference to other employers?

I had a collegue experience that once. She asked he employer if she could use her as a reference. The employer gladly agreed. But then she found that she wasn't getting any work. So a friend put her through the steps. Nothing wrong with the CV. Nothing wrong with cloting or interview, and finally came the reference. The employer was giving a bad reference, so she sued. No big deal. She won and got wages from the employer until she got a new job. You don't need unions for this.

Providing you have a friend who has the ability to call for a reference. With the rise of caller ID that gets harder to pull off. And the question remains:

If you choose to pass off this duty to a professional that you hired (which is what paying union dues really amounts to), what right has anyone to tell you not to?

She could have sued herself as well, but I assume she hired a lawyer to do that bit of work for her too and you have no problem with that either.

 

[TenPenny]

I had a collegue experience that once. She asked he employer if she could use her as a reference. The employer gladly agreed. But then she found that she wasn't getting any work. So a friend put her through the steps. Nothing wrong with the CV. Nothing wrong with cloting or interview, and finally came the reference. The employer was giving a bad reference, so she sued. No big deal. She won and got wages from the employer until she got a new job. You don't need unions for this.

Perhaps she deserved the bad reference?

 

[Cannuck]

unions are simply a response to bad management.

That was the case 60 yrs ago. It's not the cse now. It's blatant union greed and fear

I recently took a new job in municipal government and it required joining a union. I have never been a union member or a union supporter. It didn't take long to figure out that the union I belong to is entirely necessary. The municipality that I work for is small and is run by 7 Councilors of which 6 won the last election by acclimation. as a group, they are so inept that I'm surprised most of them are able to show up to council meetings with their shoes tied.

I may have a different view than my co-workers (as I am the highest paid and most "in demand" employee) but greed and fear are not issues for me. The union allows for a knowledge based alternative view to be presented to Council. Our Councilors are farmers and know nothing of road construction, water treatment facilities or the fire department operations nor do they want to bother themselves with such "trivialities". In the case of my municipality, the union provides a valuable service to to ratepayers by forcing Council to deal with issues they may otherwise sidestep.

Remember, becoming an elected official rarely requires any job skills other than just knowing how to get elected.

Since I've never been in a private sector union, I can't really comment other than to say that I don't buy Ford because their cars are crap, not because the workers are overpaid.

 

[mit]

There are some good things about unions and hiring and promotion are one of them - Nothing pisses off a worker than the son of the Boss getting a plumb assignment because of nepotism. Setting standards for certain positions also gives people clear goals to achieve before rising in an organization. Where it falls apart is when these standards are too low or there is no testing for adequacy or follow up after hiring. Buddy gets a job he is not qualified for and everyone blames the union for protecting him - Managers have full rights to determine who stays in a position - not the union.

 

[JLM]

"There are some good things about unions and hiring and promotion are one of them - Nothing pisses off a worker than the son of the Boss getting a plumb assignment because of nepotism."- The Union I was with was even useless as far as having any control over who won a promotion. There was one geographic area in particular where management was infamous for parachuting in favourites, but if the Union made things too difficult all of a sudden the posting just got cancelled and the "favourite boy" would just be in an acting capacity getting substitution pay. But then really I think the Union's role should be confined to safety issues, as they are not experts in things like job knowledge and skills.

 

[Zzarchov]

But then really I think the Union's role should be confined to safety issues, as they are not experts in things like job knowledge and skills.

Alot of the larger unions are. Its much like any role, some companies know about job knowledge and skills, some are small and just hire/promote based on "I like you".

But in the end, its the guy selling the labour that decides the conditions of his sale. You can always say its too big of a hassle and tell them all to fark themselves.

 

[Machjo]

Providing you have a friend who has the ability to call for a reference. With the rise of caller ID that gets harder to pull off. And the question remains:

If you choose to pass off this duty to a professional that you hired (which is what paying union dues really amounts to), what right has anyone to tell you not to?

She could have sued herself as well, but I assume she hired a lawyer to do that bit of work for her too and you have no problem with that either.

You do have some points there. I guess if union membership could be optional, I'd prefer that. Anyway, unions can serve a purpose for some. For others. it's preferable not to. i guess the only real solution there would be to make sure that union membership could be optional with no consequences for choosing not to join. That would be the tricky part. Either that or try to promote workers' co-ops.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps she deserved the bad reference?

If she deserved it, then her employer should not have said that she could use her as a reference. The employer was dishonest.