Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 496 posts

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#371

Post by slow_typist »

akira2501 wrote: post #308
bumby wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's stepping backwards for short term comfort. Hmmm...can you elaborate? Because I've always thought the "right to work" (ie, not be forced to join a union in a unionized industry) is an example of sacrificing short term comfort. In that case, weakening the union provides a short-term benefit (no paying dues) at the cost of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). I'm trying to find…

> of long-term benefit (higher wages, better benefits, improved safety etc.). If the labor market functioned correctly you wouldn't need unions to enforce any of this, which is obvious, because these benefits exist in almost every non-unionized industry as well. The only reason to engage with a union is because the employer is so large they not only monopolize the consumer market but the labor market as well. The cor…

Labor markets are difficult. If low wages go down further, people will offer more Labor, not less, and your microeconomic equilibrium goes out of the window very quickly. Also, while demand for work is not monopolistic per se, the employer has usually a structural advantage when closing a contract with a single employee, and in some industries only a few very big employers compete on the labor market.

If every employer would be allowed to hire exactly one worker, then you could probably do without unions, but that would yield a totally inefficient economic system I wouldn’t want to live in. And therefore modern economies allow unions as an exception from the rule. Otherwise, at least in some trades, wages will go down to the absolute bare minimum, which will lead to political instability, which leads to less economic activity.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#373

Post by closeparen »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #214
getpost wrote: post #160

I had a summer job as a dishwasher, which paid minimum wage. I was required to join the union, so after union dues, I was paid less than the minimum wage! Being a union member provided no benefits whatsoever for temporary employees such as myself. This reminds me, the artist Gregory Blackstock retired with a union pension at 55 after 25 years' service as a dishwasher[0]. His art provided another source of income, but…

Is joining a union in your country mandatory? (or can be made mandatory?). I am not talking about peer pressure but legal requirements. This sounds quite crazy. What if there are 5 unions like we have in France?

When a shop votes to unionize, the vote is binding on all the in-scope employees; you can't individually opt out unless you're in a "right to work" state. Allowing some employees to negotiate their contracts individually is seen as basically defeating the power of collective bargaining; right-to-work states are more conservative and business-friendly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#374

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #360
viccis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All effective unions are mandatory. They represent the interests of the mass of workers there, and they wield that collective power against two groups who would be happy to take food out of their mouths if they could get away with it: their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a u…

> their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees

[deleted]

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#375

Post by dataflow »

dataflow wrote: post #191
vondur wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not generally true. My friend worked at a waiter in the 90's and was making $200-$300 a night on tips on the weekend. Definitely not reported income either.

> don’t make enough > That's not generally true. [...] in the 90's and was making These are not contradictory?

The downvotes are perplexing. Could someone explain how a statement about income in the 1990s contradicts one about 2024?

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#376

Post by havefunbesafe »

kvakerok wrote: post #338
aj7 wrote: post #297

I have a PhD in Physics from Berkeley. Still, in the strictest real estate sense, my best and highest use is as a dishwasher. I was managing a small optics factory in Livermore. We made laser mirrors to order there — any wavelength, any reflectivity, any angle, any polarization, you name it. I was working my ass off and was unmarried at the time. Thanksgiving came around and I had nowhere to go. But I hooked up with…

Hungry people tend to not care at all who smiles for show and who actually cares, as long as the food is served. Just my 2 cents, but I get where you're coming from.

When going to foodbanks as a kid, I could 100% tell.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#377

Post by closeparen »

bko wrote: post #360
viccis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All effective unions are mandatory. They represent the interests of the mass of workers there, and they wield that collective power against two groups who would be happy to take food out of their mouths if they could get away with it: their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. So if you want to join a company and enjoy the benefits that a u…

> their employer and new employees who need a job enough that they are willing to work for less money or worse conditions. What if I want to work for my employer but only for more money? Suppose I'm a rockstar and my employer agrees, but their hands are tied because they can't pay me more and have to instead pay off the pension funds of people that retired a decade ago and older employees

Unions exist to redistribute income. From capital to labor, and from workers with higher market wages to those with lower market wages. That management can't award an outsized pay package to a valuable employee without buying everyone else's assent is a feature - that's why people with left-leaning economic politics like them.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#378

Post by astrange »

bumby wrote: post #330
astrange wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits Welfare does not subsidize employers, it is a subsidy /against/ employers. Giving employees welfare increases their wages because it increases their negotiating power.

If it wasn't clear, my point was that it allows employers to arbitrarily lower their wage rate where the business is viable. Example: -Employee needs $15/hour to 'afford life'. -Business is only profit-positive if it pays $12/hour or less -Assuming the employee will only accept a job if it allows them to 'afford life', as long as the government subsidizes the equivalent of $3/hour, business is able to turn a profit.…

> my point was that it allows employers to arbitrarily lower their wage rate where the business is viable.

But it doesn't do that, in fact it requires the employers to raise their wages.

Your model has a single employer (a monopsony) who doesn't need to negotiate. That's a case where minimum wages cause both wages and employment to rise.

> This was laughably on display a few years back when McDonald's received blowback by publishing their training that teach their employees how to apply for government assistance while they were posting outsized profits.

McDonald's (mainly) doesn't have employees, it has franchisers and those have employees. Different companies.

More importantly, if you're on the left then you should think welfare is good. It's good that they're telling people that! We should require it in fact!

If you're saying that telling someone to get welfare is bad, you're making an argument that welfare is bad. In your model signing up for welfare makes employees poorer. That doesn't make sense.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#379

Post by carlosjobim »

astrange wrote: post #283
cvwright wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially when we import millions of low-skill / no-skill people every year to compete with the poor people who were born here. Works great for the upper classes - keeps the price down for those fancy Michelin dinners.

Immigrants do not compete with native workers because they have complementary skills (like different native languages). The evidence is very very strong that immigration does not decrease wages. It generally increases them because it provides new demand, though that's not guaranteed.

Demand is limitless and makes no benefit. Only production is beneficial.

Re: A dishwasher can make or break a restaurant (2017)

#380

Post by viccis »

bko wrote: post #362
viccis wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-Americans thinking their opinion on American politics is wanted or relevant will never stop being funny. >I've joined unions in the past because of the access to all the other stuff that they can provide, like free legal support, representation in disciplinary situations etc, just as much as working conditions. Apologies if English isn't your first language, but those things are "working conditions"

I'm an American and I think having some union that you never chose to join dock their fees from your pay is the most anti-American thing I can think of.

Given that America's history of organized labor mostly began with massacres of striking workers, I would actually agree with you there.
Post reply on HN