Any owner who pays minimum wage is un-American - here's why

Excellent topic for a thread. Businesses like Walmart make a profit because we taxpayers are picking up the tab for healthcare, foodstamps, and welfare etc.

In New Mexico last November voters raised the minimum wage. Businesses refused to pay. Some went to court.

Most just hired illegal aliens who will say nothing, and gladly take the pay check.

This becoming a problem for more than the border States.

​

 

Not looking good for the Union gjys think right to work is up to 24 states now.... thank you god.. get rid of these dinso's for once and all...

 

If that were the case, yes. But after the bailouts of the Auto industry, most union members make considerably less than they did before the bailout, they have worked hard with the management to improve quality control. In terms of quality Chevy is one of the best makes on the market today (and this is from a guy who hadn't bought an American built vehicle since 1982) we have an '06 Malibu, and it's a great car.

More than anything, it was the poor quality of the vehicles that lead to the major problems of the Auto industry more so than the Unions, and you can blame management equally with the Unions for negotiating contracts the company couldn't afford. They were more concerned withshort term stock prices than they were in effectively running an effective business. That's been a big problem with american industry for a long time, what I call the MBA/Wallstreet mentality that is overly focused on short term profits for stockholders. Doing things like slashing R&D budgets to improve the bottom line might give you a short term boost, but over time it's going to hurt you, especially if your competitors (Japanese/Europeans/Koreans) decide to keep investing in R&D, eventually they will eat your lunch.

 

No walfart pays low wages becajse your ilk shop there.. stop going and buying I have not been to Walmart in 5 years now....

 

"My ilk?" I have not been in a Walmart store for as long as I can remember. Keep that "open-mind" of yours. Open at both ends, that way no facts stay in there to clutter your thinking!

 

Under Federal Law Striking workers can be permanently replaced (aka being fired), but must be placed on a preferential hiring list for future employment.

In the Hostess situation (which i think your referring to), the company demanded easements from the union, which had already given easements in prior contracts. Why? because of the poor executive decisions made regarding the products made by the company and poor marketing, the company was in poor shape; of course the 13 top executives voted themselves bonuses while insisting on give backs from the union; hardly an equitable situation if you were rank and file.

Employers have rights as well and they are spelled out in the NLRA of 1935. What exactly is this so-called cronyism and protectionism your talking about; can you give me some viable examples? Taxpayers allow government to be taken hostage most likely because the politicians they elect allow language into labor agreements which is bargained for by the employees and government. If the demands made by unions were so onerous, why would any governmental agency agree to them?

The only protection we have is federal law and the labor agreement signed by both parties; I'm talking private sector, not public sector. Check out my profile and it'll tell you everything you need to know. And yes, there are plenty of people out there who'd love to have my job. Why? because of the pay, working conditions and benefits. Most industries don't enjoy what we have; all of it through over 80 year of collective baragaining.

Again, unions are supposed to work for the benefit of their members; that's why most of us pay dues in the first place. If they weren't working for the benefit of the membership, why be in a union in the first place?

We are private sector and receive no subsidies that i'm aware of.

If eaning a living wage, haveing real benefits and job security is considered a lifestyle, then yes.

For some strange reason, our jobs have been around for over 80 years and we haven't gone out of business.

Sorry, I don't own any skinning knives.

I suspect that because you appear to be so blatanly anti-union, any proof presented to you would be denied by you as false propoganda. Hey, if your happy working non-union, then I say good for you. Me, i'll work union because for me it works well.

 

There are many full time jobs that are not being performed by the sole income earner in the household and most minimum wage jobs don't relate to full time employment. Many of these part time jobs relate to young people in school and living at home

BTW The current federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr or $15,080/yr and the official US (2012) poverty line for a single person is $11,170 so the minimum wage is 135% of of the poverty level.

Of course a single person living on minimum wage is qualified for numerous welfare benefits and can also mitigate the effects of the low wages by sharing an apartment and other living expenses with someone else. I don't know how this related to the minimum wage at the time but in 1972 I earned $400/mo (salary as a part time janitor), went to and paid for college, shared an apartment with a friend, and lived like a king.

 

Well, your numbers are very close enough. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

Isn't the question really about a living wage? Here is that definition from Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

"In public policy, a living wage or subsistence wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation, although in many cases child care, education, saving for retirement, and less commonly legal fees and insurance may cost a family more than food, utilities, transport, or health care. In addition to this definition, living wage activists further define "living wage" as the wage equivalent to the poverty line for a family of four."

 

If they interfer with the worker going to or leaving work or personally harass them at anytime they are in violation of criminal law.

The company does not have to fire a union worker on strike because the "strike" is the voluntary termination of employment by the worker. That's why unemployment insurance treats workers on strike as voluntary "quits' because they choose to not work for the company.

 

All right to work does is lower peoples wages, and worsen working conditions. It creates a race to the bottom for the worker.

 

Without illegals and sweat shop workers being treated like slaves and being paid pennies a day, we would be paying more for tennis shoes and ipads.......We can not have that. Americans deserve cheap (*)(*)(*)(*), even if others suffer. They are not true Americans! Why should we care about them?!

 

Pennies a day are worth far far more in the 3rd world than they are in the US. In the US a person could literally not survive on pennies a day, but in 3rd world countries, it is worth a lot more.

Tell that to all the people on food stamps wearing Air Jordans and carrying Ipads.

They don't suffer, the 'sweatshops' are a huge upgrade from what they'd have if the factories weren't there. If it weren't for the factories, they'd be living in mud huts having to hunt just to survive, like primitive savages.

The sweatshops are a blessing for 3rd world workers - it's not America's fault that their countries have such low standards regarding the treatment of employees.

Who's "they"? Anyone who dares to buy a pair of Air Jordans, or buy a cheap 'made in China' blender at Walmart.

 

China is not a third world country. Their prices are almost as high as America, and they are paid a 10th of what Americans call minimum wage.

 

Well they live in the factories, free room and board, so that compensates it somewhat. In America you'd starve to death, literally, if you only made $0.70 an hour, and not even have money to buy gas to get to work.

Either way, it's not American companies' fault that China has low standards regarding treatment of workers - even if every American company boycotted China and the factories shut down, they'd be just as bad off if not worse, because a huge source of China's economy would disappear, and people who at least had a source of income, would be living in huts in the swamp now and eating carcasses of animals just to survive.

 

You mean they live in slave quarters with one bathroom for hundreds of people. The fact that you think that conpensates for not getting made as much says a lot of you as a person. I can not officially say that I am ashamed to call you my countryman.

 

As opposed to living in mud eating grass and scraps of rice just to survive, and having to take a dump in the bushes - that's what'd be if they didn't have factories. So factories are the lesser of two evils. You seem to think that people were living in the lap of luxury were it not for those 'big evil factories', but that's not true.

It does compensate it as far as being 'livable' - 0.70 an hour is not livable in America, it is liviable in China, however (*)(*)(*)(*)ty the situation might be.

Well you're not a real American so it doesn't matter - you ignore the facts just because it gives you an opportunity to demonize your country.

 

The only thing minimum wage does is place a false floor under labor that makes it ahrder and harder to get buy. Been a working man most of my adult life and the way thing I've seen happening to working stiffs like me is that every time leftist mrons jack up minimum wage my life got tougher. The real story hear is that whatever you set minimum wage at be it 5 dollars an hour or 20 dollars an hour, you're going to have to make about two and a half times that if you are going to have anything left to save for a rainy, and in my experience every time the Democrats take control of things it doesn't rain it pours.

 

Every employee is a part of the business
and should be given a due share, but sad to say profits would always
undermine the supposed rights, that is why laws are there to make the difference,
better elect favorable lawmens.

 

Great post and I fully agree with you on NAFTA and free trade. Ross Perot was right on in 92.
The only thing I would add is that I don't think unions are the problem. Even the non-unionized labor pool can be over priced for what they are bringing to the table.

 

You are preaching to the choir good sir. I never said people should hire outside contractors or try to beat the unions, and I agree illegal immigration depresses wages.

 

Gets them a job too, dont forget that. A job not subsidized by society at large.

Working conditions are just as safe in non union jobs, and statstically safer actually. Working conditions are something the union likes to take credit for, even if it is clear they aren't the cause.

 

Their lives are also improving rapidly. They use to starve to death under Mao's central planning, now that they have liberalized the economy, (opposite of what Libbers want to do with ours), they are becoming more wealthy, driving more cars, living longer, better schools, etc... All the things that come with hard work.