Unions claim right to work law is slavery

So what should a wage be for someone who needs basically no education and has no real responsibility and doesn't exactly treat you very well? Enough to own a home, a car payment and a 2 week vacation, ect? Whats fair to flip burgers, press picture buttons on a cash register, swipe a credit card, while a computer spits out the change automatically if you happen to use cash? I dont' think the average fast food employee deserve all that much, because they don't offer all that much. How much is a smile worth at least, because I barely get that.

Now if every fast food joint was run like Chickfila, that's a different story. They DESERVE more, because the do more, work harder and get better benefits and the business model works. Its because the company is run in a completely different way than McDonalds and you can see it a few seconds after stepping through the door.

The thing is, if we force companies to pay your average fast food employee 2X as much, the service won't necessarily get better and the price will instantly get passed over to the customer, which will make going to such a place far less desirable. We've tried pumping loads of money into education for a while now and has it gotten better? Nope. Inner city schools who get 2X the funding as suburban schools perform worse across the board. MONEY doesn't fix the problem.

 

How is any of this about unions?

But I'll bite. I don't think that people at Burger King should make $20 an hour, but they should make enough that if we cut off all forms of social assistence that they can live independently. If not...social assistence. If we asked everyone to get a paying job that can support the standard of living that enables you to not live with your parents a) the few job openings in the $45-110k a year bracket would be nil, b) there would be no one to take your money at Exxon stations or Burger King and as much as we talk a big game...we cannot do without the people that stock shelves, flip burgers (well...we could do without burgers), take our money at the gas station, change our oil, clean public toilets, etc.

You speak of education...are you telling me that we should ask people to pay for $10k a year colleges by themselves, since I take you're also against bursaries for college, only to come out and take your money at the gas station to fill the gap? That's what happens if you require everyone to get a good paying job and go to college...it would mean that all jobs will have to be filled with people who have college educations, that 10x as many people will be fighting for your current job, and then it will require people to also pay for master's programs and juris doctorates to NOT work at Exxon.

Everyone, including you, would hate that.

 

A job flipping hamburger is not worth $20 an hour.

And a person flipping hamburgers is not worth public assistance from the rest of us.

Libs want to make it comfortable for Obama voters to be failures and I think they have earn what they get or they shouldn't get it.

 

I didn't say that they should make $20 an hour, just a wage that they can live with. And you didn't address the rest of my query and that is: can you do without the gas station attendent, the shelf stocker at your grocery store, the person who slices deli meats...?

 

Progressives fear poor people, which is why they make them dependent. They fear minorities, which is why they disarm them and make war upon them in the war on drugs. They fear poor people, especially poor minorities, will "steal" good union jobs, so they demand living wages and welfare for those who can't compete.

 

Boo-frickin'-hoo. Just because union workers are enslaved to their unions doesn't mean non-union workers should be enslaved to them, too.

Pity Party denied...

 

The best way to create a shortage of clerks and gas station attendants is for bleeding heart libs like Obama to keep paying people to sit at home and do nothing.

The typical Obama voter on welfare is lazy and not seeking any jobs that involve hard work.

 

Christ on a cracker! FACT: we need gas station attendents, store clerks, shelve stockers and other low paying jobs. The people that do them aren't necessarily lazy and/or looking for a handout. FACT:the typical Obama voter is between the ages of 20 and 45 and are either in college or working a middle class job. People on welfare aren't exactly showing up in wide swaths during exit polling.

If you are so enamoured of hard work...do you think hard work should always be paid well and rewarded?

 

That depends, is it productive? The only two people who should be involved in the matter is the worker, and the person who is paying him for the labor. Nobody else can know the value of that labor.

 

Then it isn't about hard work at all. You could be the hardest working convenience store clerk on the planet and no one will pay you a half mil a year. Let's not pretend this is about hard work...okay? If we can elimiate that from the discussion we can get down to the nitty gritty.

 

There's no value in labor just because it's labor. However, the labor theory of value is at the core of the living wage argument.

 

We need less of them now than 10 years ago and we will need even less in 10 years. Automation and process optimization reduced the work of 5 pump jockies to one, touch screen ordering menus, self checkout, and automated or vendor managed shelf stocking are reducing those numbers further.

But yes, someone who chooses a less challenging job and get's compensated at a rate comparable to folks who are producing a lot more is exercising some laziness and is getting a kind of gift. I'd don't begrudge him that gift. If both his employer and he are comfortable with the exchange, it's not my business. But if that employee somehow feels he's entitled to that gift, if he tries to employ government to guarantee him an unreasonable level of compensation at my own expense... ok, then it's reasonable to resent both him and his representative.​

 

Uh huh.

I'm neither young nor old, but I have experience. I've found that the hardest workers are those on the bottom and those next to the top, but not the top. Those in the middle that realize how hard they would have to work to get to the next level work hard enough to keep their jobs and those that the top have nowhere else to go and just kind of...let others do the work. This, in my opinion, is how we have a system where failing companies have CEOs who are still rewarding themselves with big bonuses while laying off workers and workers who refuse to participate in innovation without compensation.

This system is a byproduct of greed. I'm fortunate to be in a business where the clients come to us and the better we are at being annoying and argumentative...the better our results.

And as you know...I can be both.

 

You call it greed, I'll call it ambition. I don't have a problem with that system. Hard work is often valuable, but it's value is tremendously magnified by applying it intelligently and responsibly. I have no problem valuing folks who want to only churn away at a job without concern for what's actually getting done less than those who may intelligently direct or manage that that effort to create more valuable solutions. I don't begrudge folks who who accept ownership of problems I wouldn't want to touch for their contribution.

I'm happy to pay for a solution to my problems. I'll leave it to the folks solving it in how they split up their compensation. If the rarer contribution is the problem ownership and intelligence, it doesn't surprise me that those who accept that greater challenge receive more of the compensation.​

 

Here's a though. Unless you believe that greed in itself is immoral and that immorality should be prohibited by regulation and the police powers of the state, why not just avoid doing business with those businesses you see as being greedy? There are millions of small businesses just waiting to do business with you. Calling for a living wage hurts them far more than the big, greedy corporations.

 

This is a really good point. How is legislating rules against greed any less a form of legislating morality than laws about marriage?

 

Marriage is a legal construct, it exists in the law. Greed is a human desire, it exists in your head and heart. It would be easier to regulate marriage by law than greed.​

 

A better analogy would have been comparing laws against greed to laws against cohabitation and "undesirable" forms of love.

 

I don't like living wage laws, for the simple fact they are nothing more than a statist way of trying to mask that they are bankrupting America intentionally. If we have sound money and a protected national market, that in itself creates an employees market. Where companies actually need workers, and workers go to the table with their actual labor as a bargaining chip. Living wage/minimum wage laws have been in affect for quite some time now, and they have done nothing to make up for the inflation of central planning or the "compete" with slave labor of outsourcing. All they really affect is a nationalized service sector. An industry whose very nature cannot relocate. And not only was it never designed to pay people as more than a stepping stone, now we have a monstrous Federal government the size of a whale, trying to feed itself of one Blue Gill type of industry. No more beating around the bush. For the very sake of our way of life, the central planners, of a federal and global nature, must be removed from power.

As to unions, the real problem I think lies in the monopolization of the labor of an industry. Owners are allowed to form associations, but if all owners of an industry worked together towards a set gouged price, this would be a violation of anti-trust laws. Every industry should have multiple unions competing. Unions should be brought under the watchful eye of anti-trust legislation, as to not being able to gouge wages.

 

So...you are saying that managers need to be able to see the future! Well...that makes about as much sense as the stuff you usually post.

 

You think he has ever held a JOB?! I suspect he is a welfare parasite.

 

SHouldn't you be at work? I need my check tomorrow.

 

There are still unions in right-to-work states. There is still a plethora of legislation from the accomplices of unions in Washington. What there isn't in a right-to-work state is the ability to force workers into a union.

 

And, what do we do with the millions we have now who have absolutely no intention of ever working? Only some of them are in unions.

 

Like real right to marry legislation would guarantee a spouse for anyone who wants one?​