I say it's damn generous for a liberal douchbag.
Good example of why unions are stupid as all hell
- Thread starter ChkitOut
- Start date
No, and thanks, I agree with much of that. Who would?
I don't think Unions should dictate any more than I think Management should. Many employers, possibly even me in the near future, are cutting people back to 30 hours per week to avoid health care costs. It used to be 32 hours, now I'm told 30 hours. Let the gov't cover health care, and let those who use it, pay for it. Via taxes or fines, I don't care which.
Not at all. I understand that posting in the forum can be more difficult than having a face to face conversation. Many would love that job, even without benefits. I just object to the 'race to zero' when it comes to the working public. I would prefer a Union Plumber than Joe the Plumber, if you know what I mean. Even though it might cost me more personally.
However, in business, I would prefer to hire one super plumber to supervise 20 apprentice plumbers at $50/hour and $20/hour respectively. Does that make sense?
Labor laws seem to have reduced or even eliminated the need for unions. The government has covered two of the most important issues in minimum wage laws and overtime laws. Most large corporations compensate their employees well beyond the minimum requirements of labor law, it's just good business sense. The company I work for pays overtime for any work over 8 hours in a day, even though they are only required to pay it for any work over 40 in a week. Craigslist ads show that the mom and pop type companies pay about half of what my company pays.
If employers would switch their stance from, "what's the lowest I can pay my employees and get away with it" to "what's the most I can pay my employees and get away with it" they will see that employees have no reason for collective bargaining because they like and trust their employer.
If employers would switch their stance from, "what's the lowest I can pay my employees and get away with it" to "what's the most I can pay my employees and get away with it" they will see that employees have no reason for collective bargaining because they like and trust their employer.
I agree, especially with your second paragraph. Is it your company? Or are you also an employee? Not that it matters, just wondering whether you are the decision maker or not.
Min wage is still pretty low IMO. Not sure, maybe $10 per hour or so? Hard to support even a new, small family. But then the discussion turns to 'should gov't be involved all in wage and price controls?'
I would love to see fair and reasonable discussions pre hire.
Competition handles a lot of that. If a company pays an employee below the market value of the job, then that employee goes to work somewhere else. To attract talent, a company needs to make sure it is offering competitive compensation. When you try to regulate that, you get into big trouble.
One of the reasons companies like Hostess go through the issues they do is because they have employees trying to dictate compensation above and beyond what the market rate is, and their competition pays non-union and they have to pay union. Thus, they cannot compete and eventually are priced out of the marketplace.
I'm an employee, a low level one at that, but I am happy with my compensation. I've worked for the mom/pop's too, and there is a world of difference in work crew that is well compensated and one that feels like it ain't getting it's fair share.
Here's the kicker, if a malcontent who hated his last boss for not giving him enough money, break time, vacation time, etc., were to manage getting hired at a good large corporation that pays well, he will still be out the door within two weeks because he won't be able to meet the standards of his new company. I've seen it happen many times. A malcontent isn't willing to give any more to get any more.