Thank you, labor unions ......

[regexcellent]

I once saw an op-ed piece on the anniversary of some civil war thing that said that Wal-Mart is the second Southern invasion or something, re-instituting slavery across the country in its inexorable spread.

[gribbler]

I stand corrected.

[Uncle Sparky]

If you have useful employable skills you can just leave and seek a new employer who's willing to pay more for you.

In my business (acting/producing) it really helps to have set, agreed upon, ratified standards. The average theatre acting contract is about 8 weeks. Therefore an actor will want several gigs per year. Starting negotiations from scratch every couple of months would be exhausting. Also, as a producer, you can actually budget your production if you know how much the labour will cost, and decide what talent you can afford.

There are non-union theatres and production houses (all of the Wal*mart and MacDonalds commercials are non-union) but prepare to be drastically under paid if you work for them.

[MrFun]

Why the hell wouldn't you be? I'd be furious if the government told me I wasn't allowed to work as hard as I want.

Those laws are for our protection, so that companies no longer work their employees to death, paying the employees fifty cents an hour.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm so glad the government is around to protect me from obviously bad choices. I have news for you: No one can force you to work harder than you want to. It might be hard for a lazy person to find a job, however.

[MRT144]

I'm so glad the government is around to protect me from obviously bad choices. I have news for you: No one can force you to work harder than you want to. It might be hard for a lazy person to find a job, however.

Shut up or I will slap your face until it turns to jelly. Laziness has nothing to do with current unemployment for most people.

[Uncle Sparky]

Shut up or I will slap your face until it turns to jelly. Laziness has nothing to do with current unemployment for most people.

HC hasn't spent much time in the real world.

[Aeson]

I'm so glad the government is around to protect me from obviously bad choices.

Without it you'd be crying for it. You could move somewhere where there are little to no protections for workers if you want to prove otherwise. Of course you won't do so, because such places are invariably shitholes where most everyone would leave if they actually had a choice. Instead you'll take your silver spoon and use it to fling **** at the less fortunate, mocking them for not having choices (and glorifying that they don't have a choice with statements like "it would be bad if they were paid more") because they didn't get so lucky in the nature their birth as you did.

[The Mad Monk]

Attachment 172493

That's right, it wasn't the government, which in fact helped fight the unions at the time.

Thanks for your assistance in this!

[Hauldren Collider]

Shut up or I will slap your face until it turns to jelly. Laziness has nothing to do with current unemployment for most people.

For the second time this thread, that's not what I said.

[MrFun]

Without it you'd be crying for it. You could move somewhere where there are little to no protections for workers if you want to prove otherwise. Of course you won't do so, because such places are invariably shitholes where most everyone would leave if they actually had a choice. Instead you'll take your silver spoon and use it to fling **** at the less fortunate, mocking them for not having choices (and glorifying that they don't have a choice with statements like "it would be bad if they were paid more") because they didn't get so lucky in the nature their birth as you did.

Exactly. HC does not have a good grasp on real life. He talks as if underpaid, and exploited employees in United States, and especially in other parts of the world, have meaningful choices.

[gribbler]

Exactly. HC does not have a good grasp on real life. He talks as if underpaid, and exploited employees in United States, and especially in other parts of the world, have meaningful choices.

What makes you qualified to determine if these people have meaningful choices?

[Uncle Sparky]

What makes you qualified to determine if these people have meaningful choices?

He has a doctorate in Meaningful Choicology. This is a compulsory part of the school curriculum in all Republican states. Students learn that people choose to be poor, choose to be gay, and some women choose to be raped - the ones who become pregnant, of course.

[Aeson]

Exactly. HC does not have a good grasp on real life. He talks as if underpaid, and exploited employees in United States, and especially in other parts of the world, have meaningful choices.

While there may be a relatively few instances (especially in regards to illegal immigrants) of underpaid/exploited workers in the US, for the most part anyone with a job (even flipping burgers) in the US is really quite well-off. (Even in regards to healthcare issues due to bankruptcy protections.)

[dannubis]

I'm so glad the government is around to protect me from obviously bad choices. I have news for you: No one can force you to work harder than you want to. It might be hard for a lazy person to find a job, however.

If you would be intellectually honest you should say that the governement does not forbid you to work long hours. It is just that it makes it impossible for your employer to fire you without consequences if you don't work long hours.

Again, only if you would be intellectually honest.

However, since you have not yet worked a day in your life, and since daddy covered all your needs without you ever having to break a sweat, it is very difficult for you to know what you are talking about. So I guess it is just stupidity and not dishonesty that you display here.

[Jon Miller]

(Even in regards to healthcare issues due to bankruptcy protections.)

I know plenty of people who skip out on healthcare in the US due to finance.

JM

[Aeson]

I know plenty of people who skip out on healthcare in the US due to finance.

JM

Yes, but they still have a higher quality of life and more opportunity to better their position (even after a bankruptcy) than more than half the rest of the world population can even hope for. They can even expect better healthcare. At least if they show up to an ER with a serious injury they can receive treatment. Which is why I say anyone who has a job (or even unemployment/welfare/disability) in the US is really quite well off.

I couldn't afford healthcare in the US beyond a doctor's visit now and again. Yet I am much better off than most of the people in this area of the Philippines, mainly due to being born in the US and the opportunities that have come from that.

[Jon Miller]

I agree with your last sentence.

JM

[Traianvs]

I thought religions created the concept of a weekend where you don't go to work?

It's the unions who did it. Before the rise of worker movements the only days off were religious holidays. Then the 6 day week and after that the 5 day working week came into vogue.

Where I live, in the early 19th century when industrialisation was booming, workers would do 14 hours of work a day in unhealthy work environments and extremely low wages, with child labour, no compensation when falling ill or having suffered a work injury (and usually just getting fired too) etc.

Those who oppose labour unions and standards are idiots or they're disingenuous bastards.

[Wezil]

I can oppose labour unions yet still support labour standards.

[dannubis]

Labor unions have their uses. Currently however in the western world they mostly/only are self serving bastards.

[rah]

Just because something helped in the past doesn't mean it still has the same value.
Over time, the mob got involved, and other corruption factors became common place.
What have they done good lately? That's how they have to be judged now.
Otherwise they're just living off past glories.

[Lorizael]

If unions are doing good now, it's in preventing the standards we enjoy from being eroded. I am not entirely convinced by this argument, however, and there's definitely a lot of bad being done by unions now.

[Hauldren Collider]

Exactly. HC does not have a good grasp on real life. He talks as if underpaid, and exploited employees in United States, and especially in other parts of the world, have meaningful choices.

I won't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US, if you are underpaid, you can always leave your job to find one that pays you properly. If you can't, then you aren't actually being underpaid. Market forces.

This is probably the 100th time this very concept, and in fact this very example, has been explained to you on this forum.

[Hauldren Collider]

If unions are doing good now, it's in preventing the standards we enjoy from being eroded. I am not entirely convinced by this argument, however, and there's definitely a lot of bad being done by unions now.

The unions preventing the standards from being eroded is precisely the problem. We have tons of overpaid union employees that would rather drive their companies into bankruptcy than accept a pay cut. Even worse, they'd rather put taxpayers on the hook for it. C.f. the GM bailouts.

[Zevico]

Minimum wage laws drive unemployment up. Their sole purpose is to protect the employees currently in the workforce from new, young employees competing for those or similar positions.

Fact is that most minimum wage jobs are for youths. For youths this means instilling values like hard work and reliability. That's more valuable than the actual paycheck. As they grow up, they join higher paid jobs and contribute more value to the economy because of these initial experiences.

That's why so many organisations offer internships--salary free-and so many youths sign on. They understand the value of work and its attractiveness to future real employers. Of course these are only available to the children of the rich--who can afford the prerequisites and education that comes with the "honour" of the payment-free internship. And invariably, so many of these organisations are the not for profit "left wing" groups. They might even include union think tanks calling for higher minimum wages.

The mind boggles at the cognitive dissonance, or more likely the sheer thoughtlessness, of the person who condones the unpaid internship and supports the minimum wage. Work experience for the rich, but not for the poor.

[Jon Miller]

Often youths work minimum wage jobs because they need to. It isn't about instilling values, it is about acquiring food or paying for college or having clothing or paying for a car.... or even paying for sister's glasses.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The unions preventing the standards from being eroded is precisely the problem. We have tons of overpaid union employees that would rather drive their companies into bankruptcy than accept a pay cut. Even worse, they'd rather put taxpayers on the hook for it. C.f. the GM bailouts.

I have a lot more sympathy for middle class union workers than I have for wealthy investment bankers.

JM

[Zevico]

Often youths work minimum wage jobs because they need to. It isn't about instilling values, it is about acquiring food or paying for college or having clothing or paying for a car.... or even paying for sister's glasses.

JM

That's absolutely true. On aggregate, however, the more youths who have work experience, the more long-term benefit to the economy. Such youths are more reliable on average, and given time, produce more value to the economy on average. This has the effect of rendering the economy more efficient and lowering the prices of the very consumer goods you just mentioned. The price of a car, glasses, clothing--all of these prices go down due to economic efficiencies. Letting as many youths work as possible is just one more way of increasing these efficiencies and raising the standard of living for the poorest members of the community.

[Jon Miller]

Depending on where the minimum wage is and where the economy is/etc, I am not at all sure that lowering minimum wage would increase available jobs.

(Obviously back when the US was basically at full employment, minimum wage rarely mattered, but when it was applicable it probably didn't decrease the available jobs by much)

Also, when determining minimum wage the wage needs to be compared to the amount of money that people require to live. There will be significant problems (things like black market, welfare, crime, and so on) if it is significantly lower.

JM