I had no idea Scott Walker was so popular

[Al B. Sure!]

The people are speaking:

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-walker-tom-barrett-wisconsin-recall-poll-2012-5#ixzz1usmZNUNW

Walker has a commanding lead over Democratic challenger Tom Barrett: 52 percent to 43 percent.

[DinoDoc]

The question I asked?

Your question is irrelevant to the one I asked. Why should the State be both a closed shop and the mechanism by which the union receives its dues?

[Uncle Sparky]

It is the smart thing to do. Would you suggest the State negotiate tens of thousands of of individual contracts? Or have collective agreements?

Should the State litigate every employee dispute, or have a built in mechanism for resolving disputes?

As an employee, especially a professional employee, you'd be an idiot not to want a union protecting your rights.

If you want to work without a collective agreement, I'm sure you can find many companies that will hire you. Have you tried Wal*mart? I hear Target is another great company to work for.

[Jaguar]

The people are speaking:

http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-walker-tom-barrett-wisconsin-recall-poll-2012-5#ixzz1usmZNUNW

Walker is beloved by Republicans nationwide. He has unimpeachable credentials as a social and fiscal conservative. He's also an electoral juggernaut who somehow manages to win in a state that went blue in the last six presidential elections - even for Michael Dukakis.

Walker looks like he'll win this election - and three or four more after that. And I don't just mean in Wisconsin.

[Hauldren Collider]

You wouldn't know it from the way the press reports on him, though.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah you really wouldn't. MSNBC makes him seem like a dead man walking.

[kentonio]

Do you imagine that companies would be able to get away with paying arbitrarily small wages? We have direct evidence even in this economy that people aren't willing to work for wages much lower than what are already prevailing, and would prefer to be unemployed. As an example, Alabama recently had a harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants. Since then, many farmers have been letting their fields lay fallow because they simply cannot hire American laborers at the wages that would make it profitable. Even with high unemployment, the employers don't have an unlimited ability to dictate wages and working conditions.

Because its not a completely unregulated market.

You are suggesting that ALL the employers would somehow form a cartel and refuse to bid up wages for workers they needed?

If a company can hire staff for very little they can sell products at a reduced rate over companies that pay more. Why do you think jobs go to countries like China and India? Why would a company offer high wages if they then have to sell at a higher rate, when other companies are not needing to do the same? Damn right they'd settle on the lowest possible level they felt they could get away with.

There are lots of jobs that don't face any protections at all, and somehow those jobs pay pretty good wages and offer pretty good benefits for OK working hours and conditions. How does your theory of the world, where employers will mercilessly bid down wages to zero if we let them, account for this fact?

Because when a job requires particular skills that gives a modicum of power to the employee, as long as those skills are in demand. Even then that only helps as long as the overall paygrade for that profession doesn't fall too low.

I am, thank god, a salaried employee with effectively no labor protections whatsoever. I can be fired at-will. I can be asked to work whatever hours the firm needs - and I have been. And I would be really, really angry if the government tried to interfere with any of that.

Yes it'd be terrible if a company was required to provide you with worker protections, that would certainly send the company bust and ruin your life, just like it hasn't in all the countries that have those protections.

[Dinner]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/exclusive-wisconsin-dems-furious-with-dnc-for-refusing-to-invest-big-money-in-walker-recall/2012/05/14/gIQAj6lxOU_blog.html

Basically the RNC and right wing various super pacs have opened the flood gates flooding WI market with pro-walker ads while the DNC has refused to put much money in to the local effort saying they prefer to save their money for the national elections. That said, most of walker's money is from out of state.

[Kuciwalker]

Because its not a completely unregulated market.

OK. So in a completely unregulated market, wages would vanish to basically nothing? Supply and demand just don't operate at all in the labor market?

If a company can hire staff for very little they can sell products at a reduced rate over companies that pay more. Why do you think jobs go to countries like China and India? Why would a company offer high wages if they then have to sell at a higher rate, when other companies are not needing to do the same? Damn right they'd settle on the lowest possible level they felt they could get away with.

Key part bolded. Why is that level supposedly almost zero? As I mentioned before, my job has very few protections (if any) and my wage is substantially higher than average. Apparently what they "they feel they can get away with" can actually be pretty high.

Because when a job requires particular skills that gives a modicum of power to the employee, as long as those skills are in demand. Even then that only helps as long as the overall paygrade for that profession doesn't fall too low.

Why haven't wages for all jobs that don't require "particular skills" fallen all the way to minimum wage in the recession? After all, the vast majority of jobs are neither unionized nor already paying minimum wage. What keeps employers paying more than they have to?

Yes it'd be terrible if a company was required to provide you with worker protections, that would certainly send the company bust and ruin your life, just like it hasn't in all the countries that have those protections.

Yes, restrictions on things like hours worked per week would be a big problem for my employer.

[The Mad Monk]

Why should shareholders have part of their profits taken from them so CEOs can give it to politicians as campaign contributions? If the politicians were so great let the shareholders pay to them of his own volition.

If you don't like how a company spends political dollars, you can invest in another company.

Let's see you do that as easily with a union.

[DinoDoc]

Would you suggest the State negotiate tens of thousands of of individual contracts? Or have collective agreements?

I would suggest that it happen as it does in any other state. Most states in the US don't operate that way.

[Dinner]

If you don't like how a company spends political dollars, you can invest in another company.

Let's see you do that as easily with a union.

Many states already have opt outs. BTW publicly traded companies aren't regulated wrt political donations and that needs to change.

[The Mad Monk]

Donations must be declared, that is sufficient regulation for me.

[kentonio]

OK. So in a completely unregulated market, wages would vanish to basically nothing? Supply and demand just don't operate at all in the labor market?

Wages would fall to as low as companies could get away with offering as I said. There are natural floors as workers have to be able to afford basic housing, food etc, but again I ask you, why would a company willingly choose to pay more than they have to in a market where there are no in built protections for workers? Especially in an economy with significant unemployment?

Key part bolded. Why is that level supposedly almost zero? As I mentioned before, my job has very few protections (if any) and my wage is substantially higher than average. Apparently what they "they feel they can get away with" can actually be pretty high.

Who said it was almost zero? I said (and you even bolded it) 'the lowest possible level they felt they could get away with'. That isn't going to be almost zero, but it's going to be ****. You keep referring to your job, but a) I have no idea what that job is or the circumstances arouand b) your job does not exist in a vacuum.

Why haven't wages for all jobs that don't require "particular skills" fallen all the way to minimum wage in the recession? After all, the vast majority of jobs are neither unionized nor already paying minimum wage. What keeps employers paying more than they have to?

For one thing if the non-unionized workers started receiving wages and conditions that were drastically bad then you'd see a massive growth in unions. Oh except that many states are trying to destroy them and the right to collective bargaining.

Yes, restrictions on things like hours worked per week would be a big problem for my employer.

Funny, I work in an industry where crunch times are commonplace and the expectation was always that people would work long hours and extra days for no direct reward when needed. A couple of years ago the working hours directive became a big thing and everyone was talking about what a terrible effect it would have. In practise it made no significant difference to companies, they just had to actually start looking after their employees better. If you don't hold a stake in a company, then why exactly should that company be entitled to expect you to give your time for no financial reward? Are you a serf?

If you want to talk supply and demand btw, what exactly do you think workers do with the money when they receive higher wages?

[regexcellent]

The value of everything is the price, but not necessarily the cost.

Workers would be paid based on supply and demand. If wages fall too low nobody will work for you and they'll all go to your competitors, just like with everything else. That is the real floor on wages.