Flat Wages for the middle and working class - what to do?

[vegas giants]

No they did not. They leeched off of one of history's biggest economic booms. The effect was benign because the boom was so enormous. You're falling for a standard post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Ok present your evidence

 

[What if...?]

LOL. The middle class in this country was never so strong as when women stayed home and blacks had few civil rights. Let's bring that back again and we'll be all set!

The economic boom of the 1950s and 1960s was not a result of unionism.



Economic strikers can be permanently replaced, and they will be.

The "labor movement" is on its death bed. Time to remove the life support and get on with our lives.

"You should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it."

The Great Divergence coincides with Reagan's union busting.

There were other factors, reliable international communication/money transfer. And the container ship.

But union busting clearly contributed.

 

[Surrealistik]

Unions don't provide bargaining power. They simply coerce. In any real bargaining, either side can walk and there is no sale. With unions, they retain exclusive bargaining privileges and monopoly power, thus the buyer is bound to them virtually indefinitely. That's not "bargaining power." It's coercive monopoly power.

Whatever the solution concerning economics and the general welfare, it will have to not involve unions, because unions are on their way out, and that's something that should be celebrated. There are very good chances unions will soon no longer be able to coerce people into their financial core membership, hopefully Congress will finally protect employees' rights to decertify or deauthorize their unions, Trump is likely to get union-busters onto the NLRB, and so forth. It is spring time for union-busting. Let's just eliminate them and be done with it.

Whatever it is you want for people, accomplish it through government policy, not labor cartels.

Regardless of how you personally feel about unions (and even if I were to accept that they were a coercive monopoly it's one that serves the many at the expense of the few, unlike corporate and private monopolies which do the opposite, so they're not exactly equivalents), they have been instrumental in increasing pay, benefits and net compensation for the typical person. In Scandinavia, they are so successful that they obviate the need for things like the minimum wage:

5 Developed Countries without Minimum Wages | Investopedia

With results like that which yields some of the best standards of living in the world, if not the best, empowering unions becomes rather compelling.

That said, I don't think unions are the end all be all, nor can they be given the existence of automation and globalization; unionization is a partial solution at best.

Self-employment (as a handyman) offers the best bargaining power which is why I enjoy it. I work only locally (cutting down on wasted "windshield time") set my own hourly rate (and work schedule) and only bid on jobs that I want to do. I do not advertise and depend on repeat customers and their referrals. I will not bid any repair or remodel work on a fixed price basis. I work strictly on a time (fixed hourly rate) plus materials (100% reimbursement) except for totally new work (decks, fences, sheds and building lawn furniture). I will also not work if HOA approval is involved (county and city code inspectors are enough of a pain).

Per what evidence? We're talking about bargaining power with respect to your true overall compensation per unit of time, including the ability to increase it.

I mean handymen and freelancers aren't exactly a rare commodity; you're still subject to the laws of supply and demand, and in an increasingly gig economy where more and more people are forced into similar lines, I can't see these metrics improving.

 

[Conaeolos]

You can't negotiate higher wages without power.

Why not? You don’t think as an employer I don’t like my workforce happy, satisfied or included?

What about more power makes it fair? Can there not be ways for us both to benefit?

Unions give you an equal playing field.

If that were true unions would own a lot more companies.

And that all assumes they in fact represent the workers actually objectives…in many cases the will of the “majority” of members does not equal the will of many other numbers of minority of workers. Like for example old verse young. What can young worker do when the old workers are more interested in protecting pensions than make viable opportunities for the future? How does a union help them?

CEO pay has gone up dramatically.

All as executive roles are have been having a bigger impact on bottom line.

Time for more strikes.

Yeah that's fun. Less products on the selves and less services available. With millions of families who can barely afford a week of a strike. Meanwhile, well holding my business hostage guess who has the means to wait this one out? Yeah that's not just a ploy to force a revolution and encourge resetment for me having more...

 

[Harshaw]

Well. If EVERYBODY unionized....

Good luck getting the Chinese government to let that happen . . .

 

[vegas giants]

Why not? You don’t think as an employer I don’t like my workforce happy, satisfied or included?

What about more power makes it fair? Can there not be ways for us both to benefit?


If that were true unions would own a lot more companies.

And that all assumes they in fact represent the workers actually objectives…in many cases the will of the “majority” of members does not equal the will of many other numbers of minority of workers. Like for example old verse young. What can young worker do when the old workers are more interested in protecting pensions than make viable opportunities for the future? How does a union help them?


All as executive roles are have been having a bigger impact on bottom line.


Yeah that's fun. Less products on the selves and less services available. With millions of families who can barely afford a week of a strike. Meanwhile, well holding my business hostage guess who has the means to wait this one out? Yeah that's not just a ploy to force a revolution and encourge resetment for me having more...

Groups that have less power have less ability to negotiate on even terms. They should not have to depend on your feelings about them.

I'm sure you see no value in experienced workers. That is why they need the power of unions

No business is held hostage. Negotiate in good faith or not. It is up to you

 

[What if...?]

Why not? You don’t think as an employer I don’t like my workforce happy, satisfied or included?

What about more power makes it fair? Can there not be ways for us both to benefit?


If that were true unions would own a lot more companies.

And that all assumes they in fact represent the workers actually objectives…in many cases the will of the “majority” of members does not equal the will of many other numbers of minority of workers. Like for example old verse young. What can young worker do when the old workers are more interested in protecting pensions than make viable opportunities for the future? How does a union help them?


All as executive roles are have been having a bigger impact on bottom line.


Yeah that's fun. Less products on the selves and less services available. With millions of families who can barely afford a week of a strike. Meanwhile, well holding my business hostage guess who has the means to wait this one out? Yeah that's not just a ploy to force a revolution and encourge resetment for me having more...

My union isn't like that.

IATSE. Stagehands.

We are small, don't have much power.

We have what we have because we're good at what we do.

And the companies we work for make money hand over fist.

They just pay their people less because they can.

But they get what they pay for and grudgingly pay us want we get because they need us to make sure their clients are happy.

(Not everywhere. Some of our locals suck. So our local gets to go on the road!)

And we cut breaks to struggling local arts groups like the opera here in San Diego.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Regardless of how you personally feel about unions (and even if I were to accept that they were a coercive monopoly it's one that serves the many at the expense of the few, unlike corporate and private monopolies which do the opposite

This is inexcusably bogus, straight away, particularly to the extent that modern American unions are predominantly public sector dwellers. Who pays for the extortionary demands of public sector unions? The many. Who benefits? The few (those in public section bargaining units).

In Scandinavia, they are so successful that they obviate the need for things like the minimum wage:

5 Developed Countries without Minimum Wages | Investopedia

With results like that which yields some of the best standards of living in the world, if not the best, empowering unions becomes rather compelling.

The notion that what Scandinavia does is scalable to the United States never fails to amaze me. California is almost twice as populous as all five of those countries combined. And the invalidity of the comparison goes beyond population: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/why-cant-america-be-sweden/

That said, I don't think unions are the end all be all, nor can they be given the existence of automation and globalization; unionization is a partial solution at best.

I think unions are the opposite of a solution to anything. Let me ask a question: what is it that government itself simply cannot do, despite its taxing and lawmaking powers, that a labor cartel not answerable to anyone can (and must) do?

 

[vegas giants]

This is inexcusably bogus, straight away, particularly to the extent that modern American unions are predominantly public sector dwellers. Who pays for the extortionary demands of public sector unions? The many. Who benefits? The few (those in public section bargaining units).



The notion that what Scandinavia does is scalable to the United States never fails to amaze me. California is almost twice as populous as all five of those countries combined. And the invalidity of the comparison goes beyond population: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/why-cant-america-be-sweden/



I think unions are the opposite of a solution to anything. Let me ask a question: what is it that government itself simply cannot do, despite its taxing and lawmaking powers, that a labor cartel can (and must) do?

Government can not....or will not....stop the exploitation of the workers by corporations

 

[Neomalthusian]

Government can not....or will not....stop the exploitation of the workers by corporations

LOL, the very government itself, whose NLRB unions need in order for their grievances to be adjudicated in the first place, and whose labor laws have eradicated abuses of prior centuries, is nonetheless some powerless entity with no willingness to establish or protect the rights of ordinary people?

I really get a laugh when, as a sign of last ditch effort desperation to justify unionism, union apologists suggest the government itself has neither the will nor power to do anything. If that's really what you think, then why are we even talking about unions? Seems we should deal with our supposed state of anarchy first.

 

[vegas giants]

LOL, the very government itself, whose NLRB unions need in order for their grievances to be adjudicated in the first place, and whose labor laws have eradicated abuses of prior centuries, is nonetheless some powerless entity with no willingness to establish or protect the rights of ordinary people?

I really get a laugh when, as a sign of last ditch effort desperation to justify unionism, union apologists suggest the government itself has neither the will nor power to do anything. If that's really what you think, then why are we even talking about unions? Seems we should deal with our apparent state of anarchy first.

You are free to pursue any solutions you wish. Unions are very effective at reducing worker exploitation. I say go with what works

 

[Conaeolos]

Groups that have less power have less ability to negotiate on even terms.

Wages and benefits aren’t even terms! They are cost to me and 100% benefit to you. It’s my company or I who am accountable to the shareholders. If my costs are going to go up I better get something in return. I am not running a wage charity, I don't set wages based on feeling. Bullying higher wages is hurting the company. Negotiating for fair wages and environments is honourable but that not what most unions do.

If a worker wants even footing then they’ve better have something I need as much as they need their wages. Otherwise they better be willing to negotiate in reality of the situation and not coercion and sanctioned criminal activity to achive their version of fair.

In my workplaces, we’ve establish “stakeholder meetings” where employee are encourage and eventually vocalize and challenge decisions above their pay-grade. The footing isn’t equal but the input is invaluable and has lead to better wages, work conditions, benefits and retention. These type of solutions which are cooperative, builds the company and morale. It fights the cursive tensions between management and front line.

They should not have to depend on your feelings about them.

See that’s the problem with unions. They think these decisions come out of feelings. Wages are calculated. You want higher wages you need to have reasons. You need to show management your logic not your emotional demands. If it was up to them you’d all be rich. Who doesn’t want star trek over our reality? An employer isn't your mother.

I’m sure you see no value in experienced workers. That is why they need the power of unions

I see the ridiculousness of preserving pensions over future growth or awarding seniority at the cost of meritcracy. Experienced workers are a key as long as they are relevant and high-skilled. Companies can and should do more to keep their experienced workers their leaders and highest skilled employees. Unfortunately though, that ultimate responsibility remains on the employee themselves and many don’t do a good job expecting mommy employer and daddy government to guide them.

I build my expeirneced employees and so they remain my top paid. Not by seniority but by productivity.

No business is held hostage.

Every business who faces a strike is held hostage.

Negotiate in good faith or not. It is up to you

Good faith? Ha….it creates a bloody and costly war between all stakeholders every time I’ve seen it go down.

Good faith is examining, sharing and advocating reasons you and your fellow workers deserve higher wages, shares, benefits and working with management to get them implemented. Fighting, unionizing and whining is probably the worst approach ever.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Ok present your evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Let me know if you need that explained to you.

 

[Neomalthusian]

You are free to pursue any solutions you wish. Unions are very effective at reducing worker exploitation. I say go with what works

Unions themselves engage in worker exploitation. In 21 states, they force anyone who wants a job that happens to be in their bargaining units to join them as financial core members and pay financial core dues. They establish "union security" clauses in their bargaining agreements that compel employers to fire employees just because they've fallen out of "good standing" with the union. They interfere with and undermine employees' rights to decertify or deauthorize the union. They intimidate people who don't want to strike and just want to keep working.

Government agencies enforce labor laws already. We pay tax dollars to have these government agencies as it is. There is no need for continued labor cartel tactics coercing people to contribute to union coffers. Least of all in the public sector, where the government itself can establish the compensation standards.

 

[Conaeolos]

My union isn't like that.

IATSE. Stagehands.

We are small, don't have much power.

We have what we have because we're good at what we do.

And the companies we work for make money hand over fist.

They just pay their people less because they can.

But they get what they pay for and grudgingly pay us want we get because they need us to make sure their clients are happy.

(Not everywhere. Some of our locals suck. So our local gets to go on the road!)

And we cut breaks to struggling local arts groups like the opera here in San Diego.

Guilds are as old as time. The basic premises of a guild is going to work sans the socialism that underpins modern unionism.

 

[vegas giants]

Wages and benefits aren’t even terms! They are cost to me and 100% benefit to you. It’s my company or I who am accountable to the shareholders. If my costs are going to go up I better get something in return. I am not running a wage charity, I don't set wages based on feeling. Bullying higher wages is hurting the company. Negotiating for fair wages and environments is honourable but that not what most unions do.

If a worker wants even footing then they’ve better have something I need as much as they need their wages. Otherwise they better be willing to negotiate in reality of the situation and not coercion and sanctioned criminal activity to achive their version of fair.

In my workplaces, we’ve establish “stakeholder meetings” where employee are encourage and eventually vocalize and challenge decisions above their pay-grade. The footing isn’t equal but the input is invaluable and has lead to better wages, work conditions, benefits and retention. These type of solutions which are cooperative, builds the company and morale. It fights the cursive tensions between management and front line.


See that’s the problem with unions. They think these decisions come out of feelings. Wages are calculated. You want higher wages you need to have reasons. You need to show management your logic not your emotional demands. If it was up to them you’d all be rich. Who doesn’t want star trek over our reality? An employer isn't your mother.


I see the ridiculousness of preserving pensions over future growth or awarding seniority at the cost of meritcracy. Experienced workers are a key as long as they are relevant and high-skilled. Companies can and should do more to keep their experienced workers their leaders and highest skilled employees. Unfortunately though, that ultimate responsibility remains on the employee themselves and many don’t do a good job expecting mommy employer and daddy government to guide them.

I build my expeirneced employees and so they remain my top paid. Not by seniority but by productivity.


Every business who faces a strike is held hostage.


Good faith? Ha….it creates an bloody and costly war between all stakeholders every time I’ve seen it go down.

Good faith is examining, sharing and advocating reasons you and your fellow workers deserve higher wages, shares, benefits and working with management to get them implemented. Fighting, unionizing and whining is probably the worst approach ever.

Wages and benefits are the terms of negotiation.

The reasons are that you are getting rich off of the labor of the workers. We will share in that wealth or strike.

Unions will prevent you from dropping workers that have invested their lives in your company. Sorry....we don't trust your good will.

It is only a costly war if you fail to negotiate in good faith. Europe has figured this out. We need to take our power back

 

[vegas giants]

Unions themselves engage in worker exploitation. In 21 states, they force anyone who wants a job that happens to be in their bargaining units to join them as financial core members and pay financial core dues. They establish "union security" clauses in their bargaining agreements that compel employers to fire employees just because they've fallen out of "good standing" with the union. They interfere with and undermine employees' rights to decertify or deauthorize the union. They intimidate people who don't want to strike and just want to keep working.

Government agencies enforce labor laws already. We pay tax dollars to have these government agencies as it is. There is no need for continued labor cartel tactics coercing people to contribute to union coffers. Least of all in the public sector, where the government itself can establish the compensation standards.

Union leaders are elected. They serve the workers or are not reelected. Democracy in action.

 

[Surrealistik]

This is inexcusably bogus, straight away, particularly to the extent that modern American unions are predominantly public sector dwellers. Who pays for the extortionary demands of public sector unions? The many. Who benefits? The few (those in public section bargaining units).

First off, that's in large part due to concerted, sustained and vigourous attacks on unions, particularly as promoted and lobbied by the private sector. Second we are talking about the general institution of unions unionization which certainly does benefit the many (the poor and middle class which exclusively comprise it) over the few (the elite owner/management interests of the private sector).

The notion that what Scandinavia does is scalable to the United States never fails to amaze me. California is almost twice as populous as all five of those countries combined. And the invalidity of the comparison goes beyond population: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/why-cant-america-be-sweden/

What evidence exists that such programs are not scalable? Mind that the opinion piece you linked to in turn quotes an unsubstantiated opinion piece; a classic case of stacking assumptions which have been and continue to be seriously challenged as the article notes.

I think unions are the opposite of a solution to anything. Let me ask a question: what is it that government itself simply cannot do, despite its taxing and lawmaking powers, that a labor cartel not answerable to anyone can (and must) do?

A union is answerable to its constituency, just as a government is.

Again, I point to strong unionization as a demonstrated and effective strong alternative to government measures like the minimum wage. It has been proven effective at supplementing or even substituting government policy throughout the world, including in the United States for the end of achieving greater net compensation for the poor and middle class.

While I don't doubt that a government theoretically can take up most responsibilities of a union (unions are definitely better geared to handling the granularity and particular of individual workplaces), in practice it is too beholden to special interests, particularly in modern day America, to really serve as an honest actor. The stagnation of the minimum wage being a primary example.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Union leaders are elected. They serve the workers or are not reelected. Democracy in action.

The union itself is elected, but then how do the union members go about un-electing the union as their representative? Enter the Employee Rights Act. That will correct a lot of injustices that occur when employees attempt to exercise their federal right to decertify or deauthorize their union.

 

[vegas giants]

The union itself is elected, but then how do the union members go about un-electing the union as their representative? Enter the Employee Rights Act. That will correct a lot of injustices that occur when employees attempt to exercise their federal right to decertify or deauthorize their union.

Uh....they have regularly scheduled elections

 

[Neomalthusian]

First off, that's in large part due to concerted, sustained and vigourous attacks on unions, particularly as promoted and lobbied by the private sector. Second we are talking about the general institution of unions unionization which certainly does benefit the many (the poor and middle class which exclusively comprise it) over the few (the elite owner/management interests of the private sector).

What evidence exists that such programs are not scalable? Mind that the opinion piece you linked to in turn quotes an unsubstantiated opinion piece; a classic case of stacking assumptions which have been and continued to be seriously challenged as the article notes.

The burden is not on me to produce evidence that Scandinavia can't be replicated in the United States, which is over 15 times its size and vastly more capitalistic by nature.

A union is answerable to its constituency, just as a government is.

That wasn't my question. And by the way, no it isn't.

Again, I point to strong unionization as a demonstrated and effective strong alternative to government measures like the minimum wage.

Yet American unions are enormous fans of statutory minimum wages, because such policies reduce the difference between the cost of unskilled and skilled labor, the latter of which is more likely to be unionized (and provides more money from which to skim dues), thereby promoting union membership.

Tolerating unionism at all is a government measure, going all the way back to the union exemption from anti-cartel laws that was granted to them over a century ago. The NLRB and our court system protect unions and are required by unions for them to have any effect on anything. There is nothing unions can do or should be able to do that government cannot simply do itself.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Uh....they have regularly scheduled elections

Oh really? Not about recertification/reauthorization.

 

[vegas giants]

The burden is not on me to produce evidence that Scandinavia can't be replicated in the United States, which is over 15 times its size and vastly more capitalistic by nature.



That wasn't my question. And by the way, no it isn't.



Yet American unions are enormous fans of statutory minimum wages, because such policies reduce the difference between the cost of unskilled and skilled labor, the latter of which is more likely to be unionized (and provides more money from which to skim dues), thereby promoting union membership.

Tolerating unionism at all is a government measure, going all the way back to the union exemption from anti-cartel laws that was granted to them over a century ago. The NLRB and our court system protect unions and are required by unions for them to have any effect on anything. There is nothing unions can do or should be able to do that government cannot simply do itself.

You wish it was just scandanavia. Many countries have strong unions.....and a strong middle class

 

[vegas giants]

Oh really? Not about recertification/reauthorization.

So their leaders are elected for life?

 

[Neomalthusian]

So their leaders are elected for life?

You don't know what I'm talking about? Decertification. You've never heard of this? Google it.

I'll get you started. National Right to Work Foundation » Decertification Election