161–170 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart typically puts small Mom-n-Pop shops out of business when they move into a community... and they pay far lower wages than the businesses they replace.
False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about how people that see unions as something that causes a negative outcome for workers explains the massive gap in worker rights etc that clearly exists between the US and Europe.
Perhaps it is because just as we have seen here, they are told by labour advocates that fair compensation and room for negotiation are a good thing? Since a union takes both of those away, if fairness and freedom are good, one can only conclude that a union is bad. That's why I found the use of the parent's words so interesting.
You are afforded no freedom or fairness in that situation, just what Walmart wants to offer you.
Fair implies room for compromise or a lack of unequal advantage from both parties. In this case, Walmart has all the say in how your employment is handled.
A fair fight assumes that participants are on an equal footing. If Walmart shows up with a tank and you've got your bare hands, that isn't fair.
This is what I mean by fair. Fairer compensation can be ascertained by both parties through a fairer negotiation.
Unions raise the minimum standards for negotiations and conditions, whether you are a member or not.
Many unions allow for up-negotiation or work within a pay scale. Walmart has a scale too, so does your employer, except neither bottom out. Ask for compensation above the top bound of that scale and you will be laughed out of the room. A union forces an employer to raise the bottom for up-negotiation or a pay scale and negotiate for a higher top bound. Bonuses exist outside of the scale.
I cannot come to the same conclusion as you with regards to unions taking away fair compensation and room for negotiation for those reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which part of the original comment did you not understand? Fair means everyone is operating in their own interests, as they choose, which can include expecting more in the future. I did ask in the comment what is more fair than that, and you didn't mention anything when you initially replied, so presumably you agreed with that part. Freedom means that everyone is able to operate in their own interests, as they choose…
Do not assume I agree with you because I did not respond to something. Especially when I wrote that I did not understand your answer fully. You're either too vague in your comments or I'm just living in such a culturally different place on this subject that I just can't understand what your points are. We seem to have different definitions of fair and freedom. For example it's usually in peoples interest here to join…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the u…
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - Steinbeck
The dream of life-changing remuneration motivated the soldiers to fight, meanwhile the British seldom, if ever, had to pay out.
NOTE: I cannot remember where I heard this and a quick check for a citation failed me. If anyone could verify (perhaps it wasn't the British and Indian...) please do!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313
Follow the money. NBER's source of funding is dubious, at best.
Furthermore, just because the paper is on NBER, it doesn't mean the organization did the research. It's just the organization that hosts the paper. If you click through, you can see that the work was done by faculty at Stanford and The University of Michigan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Walmart typically puts small Mom-n-Pop shops out of business when they move into a community... and they pay far lower wages than the businesses they replace.
False: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20313
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their duty to employees? Those employees have the right to quit. If the supply of labor decreases, the prevailing wage will increase. Also not mentioned are the effects of Obamacare and the unintended consequences of companies cutting hours.
When the ACA was passed, Walmart hired enough people to make sure that everyone worked less than the required average of 30hrs a week per month so that they would not have to pay for health benefits or be fined. They relieved themselves of their duty to provide benefits to their full time employees by going out of their way to eliminate full time employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are fr…
>Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. // Seriously, do you think that's how it happens? Is that bluster, naivety, or what? "He sonny, do you want to eat dirt or accept our below healthy subsistence wages?" seems closer to how it goes. People don't work for low wages because they can't bargain, they work for low wages because the alternative is for them no…
And which of those options is better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even under the current administration, enforcement is weak, and it will probably be weaker under the next administration. One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the u…
> One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level. They failed because the majority of people are hard workers who loathe…
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/senator-ericksens-anti-pro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same company that shows employees videos that are equivalent to "Unions = bad, yuck, gross, not even once" during training. They have every incentive to prevent unionization. If workers have room to negotiate, that means they could negotiate for fair compensation. Reminder that our country's labor history is rife with straight up mass murder of workers because they demanded fair pay, safe working conditio…
> they could negotiate for fair compensation. What, exactly, is unfair about the current compensation? Walmart pays exactly what they and the employee agreed to at the onset of the employment agreement. Those who couldn't reach an agreement have do not provide work for Walmart at all. I really don't know how you can get any more fair than that? Everyone equally has the ability to decide what works for them and are fr…