Minimum wage and unions

In other words, a business OWNER cannot organize his/her business (his/her private property) how they like. Sounds like you do hate liberty after all!

 

By paying less than a liveable wage employers profits depend on charitable contributions since it is charity to their employees that enables them to pay such low wages. It is a most cynical and egregious exploitation of the public and its charitable impulse.

A company whose employees must avail themselves of charity is a parasitic enterprise, undermining the labour market, impeding the economy, and crowding social services with its unethical behaviour. Many taxpayers are outraged at the expense of the public welfare rolls. Indeed they should be because much of the tax money they pay into public welfare goes to support the gainfully employed but woefully paid employees of many large and profitable companies.

Personally, I believe that companies should be billed for social services their employees make use of, reimbursing both public and private charities and relieving me of the burden of the expenses they pass on to my taxes and charitable contributions. If they want my money they must earn it by selling me goods and services directly, not gaining it indirectly by my charity to their employees.

If they cannot do that there is no economic rationale and certainly no ethical argument for them to continue in business.

 

Not quite like that. The key is to eliminate parasites who rely on workers with sufficient income to buy their stuff, but who pay a poverty wage such that their workers are not sufficiently paid to in turn benefit other companies.

In business we call them bottom feeders. The scum suckers who take from but do not give back to the market.

 

Well, yes and no, the owners aren't even allowed (in Pennsylvania) to discuss with employees what the creation of the union could do to their company (potentially) which stifles true and accurate speech. For example, would you join a union knowing that your wages would put the company out of business in 6 months? You'd want to know that, right? To make a good decision for yourself, yeh?

I hate Wiki, but I'm lazy, atm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Enmons

See the wiki, mostly see the ref's in the wiki.

 

The "key" is to push your perverse morality on others with government force.

 

So language that requires both the union and company to engage in good faith bargaining, are somehow an unfair advantage for the union?

Can you expand on how a rule that equally applies to both parties is an unfair advantage to the unions?

No it doesn't, the contact the company agrees to does though.

Yeah, kind of how like when you sign a contact with Comcast, or Verizon. If you don't pay them, they can take you to court and garnish your wages.

It is kind of known as the American legal system that allows a court to determine if a contract has been violated.

Like what?

Air Traffic controllers 30 years ago?

No it isn't, or atleast you have failed to present a compelling case for this to be true.

I am a member of a union, and I have no doubt that the corporation I work for would bend me over, and penetrate me with every inch it had, if it wasn't for my union.

The reason I know this is because about half the workers at my company are salary, and half union. Hell look at Boeing in the example you gave earlier.

No union yet in SC. Know how much less they are making with Boeing pulling in Billion dollar quarters?

Of course Boeing will end up with a union in SC eventually. The day the membership realizes they can get a 10$ an hour rasie, and better benefits by voting in a union, is the day SC backfires in Boeing's face!

 

The problem is not with wages but inflation and cost of living. Companies must pay for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ups of the Fed and Treasury department, and their workers right along with them.

I think it is sad and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up that a) we have to have a minimum wage, and b) that you can't live off of it.

Instead of being pissed at companies who would have to either go out of business for lack of profit or pay workers more and raise the cost of goods at the same time, perhaps you should be pissed at the Keynesians who feel that an artificial, inorganic control of the economy is appropriate.

I hate poverty, hate that people can't work a damn 40 hour week and be able to save, own a home, or send their kids to college, but that's not the fault of these small to mid sized businesses, it's the fault of our meddling, interfering government.

 

Why would the employees vote on a labor agreement that would put the company out of business?? At the bargaining table the company would simply announce that they could not agree to the wage proposal because it would put them out of business.

If that is said, then the union would most likely ask to have the company open the books up for inspection by an actuary and if found to be accurate, the union would then work with the company on wage proposal.

Federal Law states the the employer may have group and individual meetings with the employees up to 24 hours prior to an election to state their position on the union. I've never heard of this law in Pennsylvania which limits the right of owners to address union organzing. Do you have a link to the source?

 

This is a logical fallacy.

Why would one assume that a union would knowingly put a its workers out of work?

I will however give you that this is a example of a union getting special priveledges.

With that being said, there is nothing stopping the people of Pennsylvania from changing this law, just as we have seen half the states in this nation become right to work states.

 

The bargaining table with union representatives that are not always from that company. They are arguing for the "union" itself not individual workers. If this was about open and honest communication why prevent the owners from directly speaking with their employees and revealing this PRIOR to the formation of a union.

Why prevent it? Seems rather shady to me.

What if the company wanted to have a particular profit margin and would just close US shop and send the jobs overseas rather than meet union demands? What if the owner just hated unions and would close the business rather than let one in...like what if he was ready for retirement? What if the owner was a jackass?

Employees have a right to know if even "going union" will kill their jobs, forget about what the union can or cannot negotiate for them.

The laws prevent them from having this one on one with their employer and that is not only bad for commerce, prohibitive of free speech, but is just dumb.

To which? The specific state statute or the definition of union busting? You can find it in the Pennsylvania Labor Relation's Act or on the Teamsters website of what an employer can or cannot do.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=552984&mode=2

 

The company owner may decide that IF the union gets in or forms they will close shop or move their labor overseas, not necessarily the wages they negotiate.

There are people who feel betrayed by unions and/or want a higher profit margin than the union would allow. There are also those nearing retirement who just don't like unions.

The unions don't necessarily have to have bad negotiators.

btw, I'm not anti-union. Unions are a form of free speech when organic and ethical. Workers have a right to organize for better wages. I just don't agree with laws that prop up union or company over the other.

I believe in free speech and free association.

- - - Updated - - -

Pumpkin-puss, I mean, Ethereal...I don't think Pimptight is as bad as all that. He's very pro liberty in a lot of respects.

 

If you believe in free market capitalism you cannot be against labour unions since they are only people seeking association to gain leverage in the marketplace, no different than any other people who form corporations and other businesses.

If you are against labour unions you might be for something, but that something does not include free market capitalism.

 

I believe we should subsidize the least efficient native labor market participants to not provide labor input to the economy at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that pays them to pursue other opportunity costs than compete in a saturated market for labor.

 

I think the flip side of the coin is that a company owner could say if I even hear of people organizing I will cut 1,000 jobs.

I'm not saying that if a company can't talk to its employees about the impact of unionizing it is a better option, just that perhaps there was no good options.

 

Got more.


It's well documented that the poor barely subsist in Hong Kong.
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/19/cramped-apartments-in-hong-kong-shot-from-directly-above/

I don't want my family to have to live like that.

 

What has government done that McDonald's franchisees, sign shop owners, your barber, your corner store, etc. are now paying for? Please be specific.

Meanwhile, rather than wild assertions viewed through a lense of Business is divine and Government satanic, maybe ask a small business what's making it hard to meet a payroll. 10 to 1 they'll tell you not enough customers, and those they still have are spending less. Greed, and shrinking worker pay, inflation adjusted, is not without certain drawbacks, it seems. There's a point at which businesses screw the very market their businesses depend on. In fact, that's no longer theory, Keynesian or otherwise. It can now be seen on every corner and in nearly every small business.

So fight it as they might, raising the minimum wage is about the best thing we can do for small business, since workers with money to spend are the life blood of their enterprises. Fact, not opinion.

 

Crazy talk!!! Citizens, advocating policies, in a democratic republic??? What will they think of next? Fish that live in water???

 

Do you not know how the Federal Reserve System works? Why should I explain this process to someone posting on a political forum about minimum wage and economics? Do you seriously not know how they manipulate interest rates?

I have to admit that I find that sad, actually.

I think you mischaracterize my assertions in saying that business is divine. I've been called a leftist for my opinions on Walmart. At the point that someone says something so blatantly fallacious I don't see the point in dancing off to Oz with their strawman. I'll just wait until they calm down and can ask a question without all the clutter.

Can I say that I'm not surprised that you missed the part where I said that I am not anti-union and that you completely dodged my saying that it is sad we have a minimum wage at all; that things are so bad that you cannot live off of $8 an hour. What do YOU think that means? It means that the cost of living is out of control due to inflation. Wages are not commiserate with the COI, ergo people are (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. Were the cost of living lower, the wages would not be a problem.

 

When someone says "government force" they are not saying "citizens". This is not Athens, Sir. We do not live in a city state of near anarchism.

He is arguing against the use of government force. Had he argued against collective bargaining he would not have spoken of the very earliest unions in another thread.

Say a Zen chant and then reread what people are posting. You might be surprised where you have things in common with them and what the middle ground could be.

 

He could indeed and he could mean it. Wouldn't you want to know that ahead of time? I'd rather have a low paying job than no job.

Again, I'm not against unions at all. I think its no different than boycotts and bulk purchases. Its a type of speech and negotiation. I just don't like some of the laws, but...

In this economy there are very few good options, true. Look into ALEC and PIE. You'll see that with the new prison slave labor program (thanks Republicans) even China and India won't be able to compete.

 

I'll let you look for areas of agreement when being challenged directly.

Meanwhile I'll respond to the direct challenge, since it's my preferred.

And if you take your own advice by rereading yourself, you'll see I did in fact respond directly to what I quoted.

That help?

 

Advocating policies that require the initiation of force against peaceful people is immoral (and a violation of natural law) no matter what context it occurs in, "democratic republics" included. Moreover, advocating policies that subvert the free market is economic charlatanry. Maybe you have no problem with immorality and charlatanry, so I can see why you advocate for such policies, but other people such as myself try to encourage peace and economic development. I guess we just have different priorities and values...

 

Not really because the "government" has never been categorized as "citizens".

 

No but thats next, if corporations can be citizens and the Govt is owned and controlled by corps,as it is now, why take the next step?

 

Don't get me started on corporations as people....okay, get me started...if they are going to be considered "people" let's lock up all the CEOs and shareholders when they commit fraud.

Grrrrrr.


Why'd you start me? Why??????????????????????

- - - Updated - - -

Oh dear! You don't want to talk about natural law or someone might drop a drone bomb on you, you crazy person!

::shudders::