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.
As long as one has the marketable skills and experience that are in demand, the prospective employee holds all the cards. If they do not like the wage or the benefits one company is offering, they can always take their skills to another company if they think they can do better.
I would love to be able to hire someone for pennies, but the reality is that I would be soon out of business. Either no one would take the job, or the quality of the person that does take the job will be so bad I could not afford to keep them. Either way, if I want to stay in business I have to be able to offer a competitive wage and benefits. If I am not at least in the ballpark with every other competing business in my profession (too high or too low), then I am doing something very wrong. I continuously monitor how much my competitors pay their employees. Corporations are no different.
Employee salaries are the biggest expense any business faces, regardless of the industry. I do my best to keep my overhead expenses to a minimum, why should I not to do the same for salaries?
If an employee thinks they can do better elsewhere, they are welcome to try. I am certainly not forcing anyone to stay. I am certain they can find other companies that pay the same, or if they look hard enough, maybe even more. I wish them the best of luck.
holding all the cards????? not so friend. excellent students fresh out of college are not getting hired at all. or only the cream of the crop. with 10% unemployment - employer has the pick of the litter.
and employers can dictate terms of employment esp retirement. and without unions u can expect the boss to find you incompetent 6 months before retirement assuming of course he even has a retirement plan. trust me, they try this game with unions present, u can jolly well expect them to play this game without unions.
Well, every state is smaller in population than California. Actually, all the states below are right to work states, and they all have lower poverty rates than California.
Pretty embarrassing for the forced unionism supporters.
If you look at your source a little closer you will notice that ALL the low populus States, including the forced union States, have low poverty rates. Alaska, for example, is not a RTW State and has a poverty rate of 9%. Which is lower than all the RTW States you listed.
It has more to do with State populations than State unionization.
holding all the cards????? not so friend. excellent students fresh out of college are not getting hired at all. or only the cream of the crop. with 10% unemployment - employer has the pick of the litter.
Excellent students, fresh out of college, have no marketable skills or experience. As an employer, I would not even bother looking at a resume with fewer than five years of real-world experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948
and employers can dictate terms of employment esp retirement. and without unions u can expect the boss to find you incompetent 6 months before retirement assuming of course he even has a retirement plan. trust me, they try this game with unions present, u can jolly well expect them to play this game without unions.
I can only tell a prospective employee the conditions of their employment. It is up to them whether they wish to accept those conditions or not. If, at any time, they do not like the conditions of their employment, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. So yes, the employee with marketable skills and experience does hold all the cards.
I do not offer retirement benefits, but I do provide Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical and dental benefits.
Excellent students, fresh out of college, have no marketable skills or experience. As an employer, I would not even bother looking at a resume with fewer than five years of real-world experience.
I can only tell a prospective employee the conditions of their employment. It is up to them whether they wish to accept those conditions or not. If, at any time, they do not like the conditions of their employment, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. So yes, the employee with marketable skills and experience does hold all the cards.
I do not offer retirement benefits, but I do provide Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical and dental benefits.
no consideration unless 5 years prior employment, plus hard skills a must, rock solid explanation of why not currently employed, full college credentials, take it or leave it and no pension. somehow that does not make me feel like i am holding all the cards. i really dont think the employer is over a barrel on that one. it would explain why 1 out of 3 people under 30 live at home. also it explains occupy wall street.
If you're not self-employed or otherwise working in a position with some level of autonomy or responsibility for others why would you care how good you are at your job? It doesn't matter; you're just punching a clock for a paycheck.
Um, I dunno... PRIDE in what you do? I don't just "punch a clock" (literally or metaphorically), and do care deeply about doing a good job - not just for my own satisfaction and pride, but also for the sake of those I work with and for every day. But what would I know, I'm just a lowly county/union worker who's either underpaid or overpaid depending on who you ask.
no consideration unless 5 years prior employment, plus hard skills a must, rock solid explanation of why not currently employed, full college credentials, take it or leave it and no pension. somehow that does not make me feel like i am holding all the cards. i really dont think the employer is over a barrel on that one. it would explain why 1 out of 3 people under 30 live at home. also it explains occupy wall street.
Not just "hard skills," but marketable skills. An expert in dBase, R:Base, or Paradox does me no good, but an Oracle or MS-SQL DBA would be of more value. I do not care if someone is unemployed or currently employed, but I do thoroughly check resumes. I know how people love to "pad" their skills or experience, and I have to be able to separate fact from fiction. I also have a 10 question technical test to give me some objective idea of their skill.
I do not care for the product colleges and universities have been producing, and do not hold "full college credentials" as highly as others might. However, it does give me a good indication of their ability to learn. I am more interested in their real-world experience than any theory developed in an obsolete language from some university. Someone in my profession that has worked in the real-world for at least five years has had to adapt to a changing world and learn new skills quickly. These are the kinds of people I want to hire.
Elsewhere, I think you said it was 2/3rds. Now you got it whittled down to as little as 1/3. Still that amount is going to be hard for a lot of people to believe.
I'm not buying it either, since my union dues are around $40/mo... and if that's equal to 1/3 (or 2/3) of someone's take-home salary, they seriously need to find a better job. Like asap!! I just did the math, and if the dues were similar to mine, she'd have been making approximately $3/hr based on that story.
If you look at your source a little closer you will notice that ALL the low populus States, including the forced union States, have low poverty rates. Alaska, for example, is not a RTW State and has a poverty rate of 9%. Which is lower than all the RTW States you listed.
It has more to do with State populations than State unionization.
I am not really saying forced unionism is the reason, because I don't believe correlation means causation. However, he did and he had a hard time explaining why California and New York have high poverty rates.
Texas doesn't have that high poverty rate, even though it has a large population. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois have a large population and low poverty rates. 12%.
Actually the biggest factors are politics and demographics. Some democrat policies do increase poverty, because they destroy low wage jobs and make them dependant on welfare. And if there are many blacks or Hispanics, like there is in New York, Texas and California then that increases poverty too. But I will also say that forced unionism increase the poverty rate. Forced unionism give unions more power. Union workers earn more than the average wage. If you increase taxes to increase the wage of the ones earning above average, then you will increase poverty.
My brother is trying to get into the Phila Water Dept....the problem? He doesn't have a relative working there.
MOST unions, especially public sector unions, ONLY hire friends or relatives.
That's why blacks had such a difficult time breaking in to the trade unions up until very recently.
As somebody mentioned earlier, you must be confusing all public unions with trade unions... as I've never heard of such a thing (regarding nepotism), and nearly all of my professional jobs have been union. Matter of fact, with every union-supported job I've interviewed for over the years, they specifically asked if I was familiar with anyone on the panel - and if so, that person would be removed from the process. Do you guys realize how many different fields are unionized? And do you also know what some of these positions require, in terms of education and qualifications? I'm guessing not.
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.
