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.
That all sounds nice, but where is the guarantee to the railroad company that in two years your father will be contributing an extra $2+/hr to the bottom line of the company. Is there any proof that he is contributing an additional $5+/hr to the bottom line than he was 5 years ago?
The assumption and feeling of entitlement that one should be paid more than the value they contribute is the problem here. Its really simple math, you cant continue down that path and expect an entity to remain profitable.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by bottom line. Can you elaborate more on that issue?
I have mentioned that there are problems but a reform could just as easily solve the issue. Simply because there are some corrupt unions shouldn't be reason enough to get rid of them. What I don't understand is why people are so willing to blindly trust corporations but not unions; you really think if there were no unions or minimum wage (another thing conservatives seem to hate) the economy would be better off? Let's say those two were abolished and a company decided that in order to hire more people they'd have to reduce wages (no union to help them out now). Considering how some people are barely making a living on minimum wage; the decrease in their wages would in fact hurt the workers. The only way it would work is if other corporations dropped their prices in food, clothing, rent, mortgages etc and I really don't see that happening (do you?).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by bottom line. Can you elaborate more on that issue?
I have mentioned that there are problems but a reform could just as easily solve the issue. Simply because there are some corrupt unions shouldn't be reason enough to get rid of them. What I don't understand is why people are so willing to blindly trust corporations but not unions; you really think if there were no unions or minimum wage (another thing conservatives seem to hate) the economy would be better off? Let's say those two were abolished and a company decided that in order to hire more people they'd have to reduce wages (no union to help them out now). Considering how some people are barely making a living on minimum wage; the decrease in their wages would in fact hurt the workers. The only way it would work is if other corporations dropped their prices in food, clothing, rent, mortgages etc and I really don't see that happening (do you?).
Re Bottom Line: If your fathers hourly labor is not a direct result in the company making more profit than they are paying him, then a raise would be financially irresponsible for the company to pay out.
Nobody, just using it as an example...we dont have proof either way.
The point of the comment though is that one can not expect to make more money than the value they contribute to an organization. Assuming you will always get a 5% annual pay increase means that you assume the business you work for will always generate a minimum of 5.01% more revenue because of your efforts.
It goes both ways. Theoretically unions are there to ensure workers get their fair shake. If profit is up 2.5% in a year I think it is perfectly reasonable that the employees expect a 2.5% raise, as they helped create the profit. Truthfully most workers (both union and non-union) are "underpaid", meaning they produce more for their company than they are compensated for. This will always be the case as the demand for different skills do fluctuate over time. Unions are responsible for their share of evil, but had they never existed workers would have continued to be exploited at a much greater rate never allowing the middle-class to develop the way it has. Now that unions are losing influence, those at the top of the ladder are receiving a much higher share of profits that they do not neccesarily create. So now they are technically "overpaid" while the average employee is "underpaid". This is leading to the erosion of the middle-class and helping to destroy our economy.
Suppose in the example listed above, the employee's value to the company is $50 per hour. It would be resonable for him to start out at $21 as he is a new employee. Then a year or two down the road, he shows to be an asset to the company and makes clear his intention to stick around. Obviously he can't expect to get the "full value" of what he his producing but $28 is not unreasonable for the company considering the asset he is to them. Had there been no union pressure, they might just say "oh he's willing to do all that for $21 per hour raise or no raise, let's go take that $7 per hour X 40 X 52 and have a big "Board of Directors Christmas Charity Event!".
I also get tired of the exagerations made by many. Very few union workers are living "high off the hog" these days, with the exception of maybe the Teamsters. UPS (union) actually pays lower wages than FedEx (non-union). Almost no one (union/non-union, public/private sector) is geting lavish raises (if any). Quit swallowing the rhetoric.
Last edited by massnative71; 09-05-2011 at 10:41 PM..
If profit is up 2.5% in a year I think it is perfectly reasonable that the employees expect a 2.5% raise, as they helped create the profit.
No, if the profit is up 2.5% in a year, the employee deserves a smaller percent of that as a raise. If you were to continually pay out all additional profits as salary increases, you could never expand the business by hiring more people, investing in better resources, or improving the quality of your product. If someone wants to be entitled to ALL of the additional revenue of a company, then they have the option to start their own company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Suppose in the example listed above, the employee's value to the company is $50 per hour. It would be resonable for him to start out at $21 as he is a new employee. Then a year or two down the road, he shows to be an asset to the company and makes clear his intention to stick around. Obviously he can't expect to get the "full value" of what he his producing but $28 is not unreasonable for the company considering the asset he is to them. Had there been no union pressure, they might just say "oh he's willing to do all that for $21 per hour raise or no raise, let's go take that $7 per hour X 40 X 52 and have a big "Board of Directors Christmas Charity Event!".
Your example assumes that there are no other companies to leave and go work for. Competition in the marketplace will allow that employee to take their unique skill set and valuable labor to a competitor and get paid more. You can not use laws to regulate salaries, the market must regulate that on it's own or else you are setting artificial points that may not be able to be supported by a company's revenues.
No, if the profit is up 2.5% in a year, the employee deserves a smaller percent of that as a raise. If you were to continually pay out all additional profits as salary increases, you could never expand the business by hiring more people, investing in better resources, or improving the quality of your product. If someone wants to be entitled to ALL of the additional revenue of a company, then they have the option to start their own company.
Sorry, let me correct myself in that they should expect the same percentage value they contribute to the company (whatever that magic # may be). If the need for expansion or more workers go up with company demand then the value of each worker may or may not be worth the same percentage of profits. It is on the company to decide whether more or less workers are needed, or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Your example assumes that there are no other companies to leave and go work for. Competition in the marketplace will allow that employee to take their unique skill set and valuable labor to a competitor and get paid more. You can not use laws to regulate salaries, the market must regulate that on it's own or else you are setting artificial points that may not be able to be supported by a company's revenues.
See the coal mines, or Mexico. No laws (other than the minimum wage) regulate salaries. Unions are used as a tool to negotiate wages, giving the individual more shake than he would have on his own. There are good unions and bad unions. A good union is not there to harm a company or make it less competitive, it often does the opposite.
Sure, just as soon as union workers actually start working the rest of the days of the year.
I'm a union member, and work the rest of the year - just like everyone in the private sector. Not to mention, I have FORCED UN-PAID furlough hours (120/year for full-time employees right now), and cannot work more than my approved weekly hours. We also don't get overtime, not to mention my overall salary is MUCH lower than private employees in my field/position.
Who are you referring to, exactly? The POTUS and his crew?
I just wanted to take a moment on CD to thank the unions in this country for the holiday. I hope that all the anti union posters on CD stuck to their principles and went to work this Labor day.
Unions in the private sector despite being the end of many companies is more realistic.
Unions in government bargaining against the taxpayer using hundreds of millions to buy politicians, raises, pensions and growth is more like a cancer the the USA than anything else.
Unions in the private sector despite being the end of many companies is more realistic.
Unions in government bargaining against the taxpayer using hundreds of millions to buy politicians, raises, pensions and growth is more like a cancer the the USA than anything else.
Other than the politicians, can you provide an example of any of these happening?
Other than the politicians, can you provide an example of any of these happening?
LOL, 400 MILLION to Obama alone in 2008 who later turned over 95% of the so called stimulus to government unions instead of the private sector.
Unions buy and own the Democrat party.
Outside of politicians and government you can follow the history of unions striking themselves and their companies eventually out of business.
See automotive industry.
The current status and position of unions aside every worker needs to remember "unions" are the reason most people have health insurance, not forced to work 12 hour days 7 days a week, and receive a fair wage.
People seem to forget most of these crazy contracts were originally done when everyone was making a shyteload of money, the deals have not kept up with the times, BUT blaming most business problems on unions is incorrect.
If you are making $1,000 a day, paying your babysitter $100 a day sounds fine doesn't it?
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.
