Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I think its a matter of knowing the right people I got into a good Union Job that paid well,very physical.Retierd from it at 38,then drove over the road until I was 50.Made good money.Now I'm Retired.
My wife went to College but mainly worked Union jobs making good money but very physical.All them Jobs left the country mainly because of NAFTA.She just recently started her own Business invested $1,000,last week she made $3,000 but truth she most usually makes $1,000 a week working maybe 20 hours,so she could make way more if she was to push it.
Two of our Kids are working easy jobs one works for a Bank the other mostly works from home but he is making high six figures.But he got his Job knowing the right people.But we have another Son working very physical Job with Tourist in the area,makes minimum wage,laid off in the Winter.Only thing good with him on this he owns his own place.
But in truth I believe anyone who uses their Brawn more than their Brain should be able to make a good wage ,sorry to say the Jobs are no longer there and I blame it mostly on Clinton.
Nothingn wrong in looking at society as a whole and see what is good for the good of the nation as a whole.
The friend that built the road got his pay. What are you saying? That because he built the road we need to show some type of appreciation? What should that be?
Also, the road was made by the government for the benefit of all. The taxpayer most likely paid for that road so the worker got his pay. In reality it was an exchange between the worker and the taxpayer. It is a done deal, no more no less.
As far as the social needs the constitution was drafted with what the people as a nation need as a whole. I do not know if you have heard of the Tragedy of Commons. That is a very good concept to decide what a government is good for and when the government should not interfere.
Also, The Constitution delineated what are the government responsibilites and commerce was one of them. However, these responsibilties were designed to encourage commerce, not to meddle in the details. Let the market work its magic. The people and business can work things out without government interference.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Really what I'm saying is that in a society the individual depends on every member, and every member depends on the individual. The guy that builds the road has just as important of a job as a doctor or even a president for neither of these two could get anywhere to do their jobs had it not been for the guy that built the road. No one would have a place to live had it not been for the person that built the house. One job in society isn't necessarily more or less important than the other. These people are fulfilling a need in society that is usually every bit as important as the next job. It's impossible to draw a line in the sand, as it would end up as a value judgment. But in short, I think that the guy that builds the roads, the schools, the dams; the janitor, the security guard, the doctor, the lawyer all fulfill an equal social need. There should be at least some reflection of that in their pay.
Would you elaborate, please, on your thoughts about the role of morality in this discussion?
What could possibly be moral than the current system of having labor valued on a supply/demand basis. People are free to modify their job skills to take advantage of labor shortages. Nobody is forced to do anything, either work in a particular area, or hire any particular labor-category that they don't want to.
The only problem I see is the unconstitutional unequal protection under the law that exists whereas labor are able to collude (collective bargain) against employers, but employers are not allowed to collude (collectively bargain) against labor. In a perfect (or more-perfect) world all workers would be able to negotiatiate under collective bargaining with employers who are also collectively bargaining as a group. As it is now, one group (employees) are given unconstitutional protections that employerss aren't afforded.
What could possibly be moral than the current system of having labor valued on a supply/demand basis. People are free to modify their job skills to take advantage of labor shortages. Nobody is forced to do anything, either work in a particular area, or hire any particular labor-category that they don't want to.
The only problem I see is the unconstitutional unequal protection under the law that exists whereas labor are able to collude (collective bargain) against employers, but employers are not allowed to collude (collectively bargain) against labor. In a perfect (or more-perfect) world all workers would be able to negotiatiate under collective bargaining with employers who are also collectively bargaining as a group. As it is now, one group (employees) are given unconstitutional protections that employerss aren't afforded.
As a proud union member of 29 years ( now retired) I don't get your point.
When a contract is signed, the union agrees to no strikes.
The company agrees to no lock outs.
When the contract has expired and negotiations start up, the workers know that striking could cause them to lose their jobs.
The company realizes that they run the risk of a strike.
Who has " the upper hand" depends on the economy when the contract expires.
Also, many union contracts are not between just one company.
In many places in the construction trade, the contract is binding between the union and all union contractors in a region of a state. ( thus all union contractors have representation at the bargaining table.
In some bigger cities, auto mechanics are unionized and the contract covers all union car dealer who are union.
Same with many supermarkets that are union. One union contract applies to all meat cutters and all supermarkets who employ union meatcutters.
Thus, all of management has representation in negotiating contracts.
As a proud union member of 29 years ( now retired) I don't get your point.
When a contract is signed, the union agrees to no strikes.
The company agrees to no lock outs.
When the contract has expired and negotiations start up, the workers know that striking could cause them to lose their jobs.
The company realizes that they run the risk of a strike.
Who has " the upper hand" depends on the economy when the contract expires.
Also, many union contracts are not between just one company.
In many places in the construction trade, the contract is binding between the union and all union contractors in a region of a state. ( thus all union contractors have representation at the bargaining table.
In some bigger cities, auto mechanics are unionized and the contract covers all union car dealer who are union.
Same with many supermarkets that are union. One union contract applies to all meat cutters and all supermarkets who employ union meatcutters.
Thus, all of management has representation in negotiating contracts.
I am not aware of a Union contract being negotiated with all companies collectively (where all companies are negotiating as one entity). If this happens, (and I am not convinced, yet, that it does), then I would retract my statement)
PS I'm a corporate schlep but also work hard. Sadly, how hard you work and how much you make - even within certain job types or the same freaking company - often doesn't align either.
Sad but true. There is no equity in the working world.
Really what I'm saying is that in a society the individual depends on every member, and every member depends on the individual. The guy that builds the road has just as important of a job as a doctor or even a president for neither of these two could get anywhere to do their jobs had it not been for the guy that built the road. No one would have a place to live had it not been for the person that built the house. One job in society isn't necessarily more or less important than the other. These people are fulfilling a need in society that is usually every bit as important as the next job. It's impossible to draw a line in the sand, as it would end up as a value judgment. But in short, I think that the guy that builds the roads, the schools, the dams; the janitor, the security guard, the doctor, the lawyer all fulfill an equal social need. There should be at least some reflection of that in their pay.
There is not dispute that every job is important. Everbody does his part. Again, who do you want to control what wages should be paid?
What is that some reflection you are talking about?
To me it seems you have socialist inclinations by expecting people to be paid not so much by the demands of the market by social morality.
If that is the case I do not agree with you. Countries that have tried your concept have failed. As far as unions, I am sure that people that are in unions do get better pay than those that do not. However, in the end the people paying for it is the customer in higher commodity prices. If EVERBODY was getting union wages I believe this would result in exorbitant prices when you pay for food transportation, home construction, etc. If EVERYBODY was getting union wages there is not way that as a nation we could afford such system. EVERYTHING would be more expensive. Actually, the US would have to enforce protectionism because the customer would go and buy things that are produced much cheaper in other countries so we would not allow much on imports. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world markets because we want to make sure we protect our wages. The rest of the world would retaliate and we would hurt because we do depend on many things the rest of the world can offer to us. We also depend on exports but if our products are to expensive because we have all these inflated wages compared to the rest of the world we could not sell our products. This time in history is not unique at all with what is going on on in the global economy. There is a great book entitled "A Spledid Exchange" It is about the history of world trade since the beginning of recorded history all over the world. You can see how people have had trade wars and how nations have used protectionist laws that in the end hurt more than help.
That is the problem I have with unions. Yes some will benefit but in the long picture the rest of the people hurt.
However, when you say about wages that reflect the social contribution to people has proven that it hurts than help. But for the sake of argument, please tell me who should determine what every type of trade, profession, etc. should pay?
The point, again, is not whether people work hard at every type of work. The point is that the market dictates what are the needs the people request to take care of their lives. They people demand what toys, cars, food, etc. will satisfy them. Based on that some people will produce certaint things and other people will not make as much money because their products may not sell.
So, who do you want to dictate wages?
I am not aware of a Union contract being negotiated with all companies collectively (where all companies are negotiating as one entity). If this happens, (and I am not convinced, yet, that it does), then I would retract my statement)
Minnesota ........union construction
Minneapolis ........union auto mechanics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but also work hard. Sadly, how hard you work and how much you make - even within certain job types or the same freaking company - often doesn't align either.
