Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2018, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Texas
3,251 posts, read 2,535,475 times
Reputation: 3127

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
That's somewhat irrelevant: It is relevant only in the context of the fact that if the park's management cannot operate the park profitably, then it should be cast aside in favor of superior managers.

There isn't a moral foundation for considering the ability for employees to afford to pay their own way and support their families as a variable to be set based on the profitability of the enterprise for which they work. Profitability can morally be used to determine whether those employees enjoy compensation that affords them luxuries, but not sustenance. A business that capitalizes on the desperation of those less fortunate in the manner you suggest is unjustifiable by any moral yardstick.

So the actual point underlying what many are saying in this thread is that the system lack moral standing. Yes, it does. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It's only been the last hundred years or so that human society has come close enough to a civilization that can be classified as moral, in this regard, to even be able to discuss, as we are in this thread, how close or far society is from moral standing.

In a barbaric world where people are resources instead of human beings, that makes sense. I'm not sure I'd want to be the one flying that banner though, since it clearly shines a light on the lack of moral foundation for the perspective that you're promoting. And despite what a lot of people think, morality, in the context of how the society we collectively craft, treats the least among us, actually does matter.

"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " - Hubert H. Humphrey

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" - Pope John Paul II

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."- Gandhi

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." - Proverbs 31:8-9

Don't get me wrong - an amoral argument can be made to defend what you're promoting. It isn't "illogical" and it isn't "incorrect". It's just immoral.
The system we've created still requires a business to be profitable, and still requires workers to produce something of value. My point is that when outsiders start tossing around what a job or task is dangerous because it's really irrelevant and only serves to cut down their fellow workers.

Some people may find it offensive to their own self worth if a Disney janitor makes close to what they make, or more. So they resort to belittling the job and criticizing a union they are not a part of as being greedy. There's nothing more anti-capitalist than being willing to do a job for less money than you could negotiate for.

In our union, it is our task to produce a quality product as efficiently as possible. Trickle down economics actually works in our little contracting universe because raises are much easier to negotiate for when the companies are profitable. Believe it or not the more we make, the more they make because they add a percentage of profit on our time worked. If we're not working, they're not profiting.

The model can't work for every business of course. I'd like to know if UNITE HERE owns any stock in Disney. I think it would be beneficial in them purchasing shares in Disney to make them more beholden to their employees, and their employees more invested in the success of their park.

The sole purpose of any business is to be the most profitable for the owners and share holders above all else, but what if the employees are the share holders?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2018, 09:02 AM
 
1,248 posts, read 4,050,253 times
Reputation: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I know this is going to be hard to believe, but poor people do not run around with shiny new iphones, wearing $200 sneakers eating out every night. This is a load of BS that has been disproven over and over again, yet “fake news” conservatives love to spew this out as fact.

I’ll tell you another secret - I’m doing pretty well in life and I still encounter racism.

Uh no it's what I actually see. For example, how do College kids in Boston afford all this stuff?? Did know half the workers in Boston MA make 35,000 a year or less. What is the average income of a college kid and where do they get all this disposable cash that there are multiple Chipotles, Starbucks, even car dealerships on or around campus?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 09:29 AM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,095,543 times
Reputation: 29347
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
"The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " - Hubert H. Humphrey

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" - Pope John Paul II

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."- Gandhi

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." - Proverbs 31:8-9
Cute sayings but not true. Just because some respected people said them does not make them true. Just because some people want them to be true does not make them true. If you look back in history, the greatness of a nation has almost always been measured by it's military and economic power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 09:55 AM
 
13,395 posts, read 13,432,908 times
Reputation: 35711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
No, that's what you want me to say because it reinforces your perception on unions. You're being very disingenuous.
No, no no. YOU said that the skill level of the employees had no connection to what the union negotiated. So a good union could possibly get uncommonly high pay for lower skilled workers.

Please clarify what you meant if I am wrong. I'll restate. Union or not, should Disney pay a ride attendant $62k?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,694,110 times
Reputation: 12337
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
There is NO subsidization going on. Not at Disney. Not at Wal-Mart.
Why do you think this? If the employees of Walmart and Disney qualify for welfare/food stamps/Medicaid (and they do!), then that means those large corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers. Rather than paying a living wage, they know that the government will make up the difference
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Texas
3,251 posts, read 2,535,475 times
Reputation: 3127
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
No, no no. YOU said that the skill level of the employees had no connection to what the union negotiated. So a good union could possibly get uncommonly high pay for lower skilled workers.

Please clarify what you meant if I am wrong. I'll restate. Union or not, should Disney pay a ride attendant $62k?
That's correct, the skill of difficulty of the job is not inherently relevant to compensation. It is the responsibility of the employee or union to make the argument that their skills are worth X amount, but it is not an absolute.

You don't make what you're worth, you make what you settle for.

If UNITE HERE can negotiate $62k for a ride attendant, good for them.

What do you do, how much do you make, and how did you come to making that?


Look at your response to what I wrote. It's very dishonest to put words like that in my mouth.
Quote:
Think about what you just wrote. Skill level isn't important in a unionized environment. Is that what you're saying? A union should bully employers to pay a ride attendant $60k a year? Unions don't care about the quality of the worker. It's all about bully power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,642,830 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
There's nothing more anti-capitalist than being willing to do a job for less money than you could negotiate for.
"Negotiate"? Or hold the other party in the "negotiations" hostage by insisting that they must treat with a union, and cannot deal with employees individually if they so choose?

And a key word in your statement is "willing". Could I possibly negotiate for a little more to do my job? Sure. But I'm perfectly willing to do it for what I'm getting now. What, exactly, is "anti-capitalistic" about that? What about the other side of the coin? Wouldn't it also be "anti-capitalistic" for a purchaser of labor to pay as little as possible? If you have a plumbing problem, and three quotes to fix it, and you believe the quality and scope of all three quotes is equal, which do you choose? I submit it would be the lowest bid, because anything else would be "anti-capitalistic".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,642,830 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
Why do you think this? If the employees of Walmart and Disney qualify for welfare/food stamps/Medicaid (and they do!), then that means those large corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers. Rather than paying a living wage, they know that the government will make up the difference
Why should they be beholden to pay more than they need to for labor because someone else has decided to give money away? If you feel that the taxpayer is "subsidizing" these companies, wouldn't the correct response be to end the subsidy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 11:00 AM
 
Location: USA
6,230 posts, read 6,897,683 times
Reputation: 10778
Keep in mind that theme parks, grocery stores, and related operated on very thin margins. They can't afford to pay top dollar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2018, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
3,285 posts, read 2,642,830 times
Reputation: 8225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
If UNITE HERE can negotiate $62k for a ride attendant, good for them.
How long do you believe that state of affairs could last?

If ride attendants can get that, why not all Disney employees? And then, all of those who made more than the Disney minimum already should get that difference or more on top of the $62K, right? How much does that increase Disney's labor costs? How much would that result in park attendance increases? What if that winds up reducing attendance and therefore revenue and therefore ability to pay everyone $62K? Can they lower wages? Lay people off? Go bankrupt? Could they say, "This union is killing us, we simply aren't going to talk to them again, we're back to offering $13 an hour for ride attendants and anyone who doesn't think that's enough is free to not do it"?

I really, really wish there was a mechanism to force people like you to have to be responsible for running a business for a while, long enough to see just how much the bottom line matters and how your beliefs do not, and cannot, intersect with reality. I'd love to see you have to issue layoff notices to people because a union just priced them right out of a job. I'd love for you to see and feel the very real consequences of your fairy tale fantasies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top