Live data from Hacker News

American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

mobile.nytimes.com

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#71

The linked article mentions outsourcing, but it was this other _fantastic_ article [1] on the structural issues of the current wage economy that really helped me understand just how different things are: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and…

I hate this. I REALLY hate this. Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful. Sure, sometimes contracting makes sense, but replacing your core workforce with contractors just sucks. Here are some reasons why: 1) loss of corporate identity / camaraderie 2) reduced working training & quality... and loss of control over how work it performed. If you retain control over work methods, th…

> Creating a full-time workforce by cobbling together contractors is disgraceful.

Not paying people but still requiring them to do things (like show up to work or keep their schedule free) is disgraceful. Hiring part-time workers is not disgraceful.

If we want more full-time workers for stable employment, we need to a better job disentangling our social justice policy goals (retirement savings, health care, maternity leave, etc.) from full-time employment agreements (at least exclusively those agreements). If we want a dynamic labor market and employees with the ability to tell their bosses to stuff it, we need to stop leaning so hard on the employer/employee relationship.

It clearly isn't working.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#72

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep.

When you go to lunch today, show the people making and serving your food the article and ask them if they'd like to be tied to a non-compete. Ask them if it would be easy to "just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry."

It may be rather eye opening for you.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, unionization in Canada is still as strong as the strongest years in the US. Despite that, wages are every bit as stagnant as the US and, looking at income data, there is a lot of mirroring between the two countries. The substantial decline of unionization in the US is one thing, but what is Canada doing wrong?

I am curious as to where you are getting the idea that "unionization in Canada is still as strong as the strongest years in the US". That's pretty much the opposite of my personal experience and observations, and it's not the consensus I've been hearing (which is that organized labour has been at an absolute nadir in the past few decades, as much in decline as in the US). Unions have shrunk, membership are down, poli…

> I am curious as to where you are getting the idea that "unionization in Canada is still as strong as the strongest years in the US"

Based on the share of the workforce that is represented by unions. Canada is currently at ~30%, the US peaked at ~30% and is at less than 10% today.

> Unions have shrunk, membership are down, political clout is down, and a newly unionized company is a rare bird indeed.

Unionization is indeed down, but what I said is that it is still about as strong as the strongest years in the US. Canada had even stronger unions through the 80s, when it peaked at just shy of 40%. Interestingly, much of the same wage issues we face today were still present at that time. Wages have been stagnant since at least the 70s, according to the Canadian government (and American data echos this).

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#74

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep.

Because low-skill isn't unskilled. Employers know that even in these jobs a modicum of experience gives an applicant a decided advantage in applying for new jobs, and not having it serves as a bar for employment which means that this underpaid labor also has to beat the cost of retraining, then likely accept a below-market training wage to get work.

At the same time these clauses reduce the number of potential employers for any given candidate, so any given employer has less incentive to meet a higher salary demand.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#75

The linked article mentions outsourcing, but it was this other _fantastic_ article [1] on the structural issues of the current wage economy that really helped me understand just how different things are: "Thirty years ago, she says, you could walk into any hotel in America and everyone in the building, from the cleaners to the security guards to the bartenders, was a direct hire, each worker on the same pay scale and…

What is it, in particular, about contracting that allows businesses to pay the same people less? What can they do with the contracting that they couldn't do without it? I think this: >“By shifting tasks to contractors, companies pay a price for a service rather than wages for work. That means they don’t have to think about training, career advancement or benefit provision.” was an attempt at explanation. But I don't…

What is it, in particular, about contracting that allows businesses to pay the same people less? What can they do with the contracting that they couldn't do without it?

A big one in the UK is it enables dodging of Employer’s NI

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#76

Why are low skill non-competes bad? You can just lateral into another low skill job in an unrelated industry. It’s not as if you have a huge amount of human capital sunk into sandwich prep.

It still causes the same problem. It limits the opportunities people have available to them. Lets say 5 Guys opens up shop right next to Subway and is offering $3 more per hour than Subway. With non-compete's at Subway, those workers would be stuck and there would be no onus on Subway to improve their wages or benefits.

Without the non-compete Subway workers would apply for work at 5 Guys, which would force Subway to become a more competitive employer.

No matter what rung of the ladder you're on, non-compete's hurt employees and benefit employers just as they were intended to do.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#77
post #10

The claim that sandwich-making is monopsonic seems dubious. Statista has the largest employer at 12.7% market share and "Other" at 55%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307965/market-share-of-f... Research Gate has similar figures, though I believe this one is international: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Market-Share-of-major-pl...

The claim is not that it is intrinsically monopsonistic but becomes so through the use of non-compete clauses.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#78
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah that's what unions are really about - to think about the employees for the employees good, where HR thinks about them for the good of the company. implementations of that idea are of varying quality which unfortunately gives them a bad rep.

> implementations of that idea are of varying quality which unfortunately gives them a bad rep. Also giving them a bad rep: propaganda efforts by big employers. Back when I worked for them, Walmart showed new hires a training video that could be summed up as "just say no to card checks; union organizers are trying to trick you into giving up your rights, and you don't need a union anyway because we value our associat…

Arguably, unions were so successful that people started asking "what do we need them for anymore?" It's shortsightedness that companies were/are all to happy to exploit.

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#79

Corporate America has trained the plebs well. Every time a discussion on unions or any sort of organization to "push back" against the big companies in just our own industry is met with a good 50% of HN readers dismissing the idea outright. And even talking about cutting off the supply of H1Bs - or at least the body shops that probably aren't as prolific at the top companies which are overrepresented here - is flagge…

Yep, this one has already been flagged

Re: American companies are suppressing wages for many workers

#80

Post-contractual non-compete without any compensation. It’s starting to be a thing even in EU. 5-10 years ago I could sign an employment contract blindfolded, now it’s a freaking minefield where in couple of years I can end up without a job, unemployable, and owning multiple monthly salaries to the employer. We have too many bored lawyers.

Worse, post-contractual IP assignment clauses are becoming more common as well. I ran into two the last time I was job shopping (out of 3 where it reached the offer phase).
Post reply on HN