If Unions are an Evil Empire then what are the Koch Brothers?

[doomer]

So according to the conservative view, every employer is entitled to dictate working terms to their employees. We now operate in a culture of open labor markets, so if the US Citizen is compelled to work for conditions dictated by their employer, and employers are free to offshore jobs and import cheap labor with 3rd world cost of living, what do you think happens to US labor force in a generation or two?

 

This is organized extinction of the middle class!

 

I wouldn't consider this the conservative view. The conservative view...or at least mine...would be to reduce those cost burdens that are barriers to employment. I have to file and pay over 7 payroll taxes plus additional reporting obligations as well as workers compensation insurance. Add onto that benefits and always the burden on the employer to justify terminations before the unemployment office and EEO....no wonder companies outsource. Government is too long looking for companies to be the panacea to fund financial issues and ultimately this is a detriment to those who would have been employed. And to those who espouse the European social systems, I can tell you for a fact that they are losing their employment well ahead of the US despite their dogged parochialism.

[75center]

That's cool. I'm not naive to believe there aren't some underhanded tactics being employed by unions. Let me rephrase....the unions and Steelworkers I deal with cover Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky don't scare me in the slightest. Nor will they ever.

 

I think unions and their members, like companies, get lumped into the mix due to the actions of the bad apples. It's unavoidable.

[Larry Warner]

But they'll still offer the same wages and benefits in a RTW climate. Those nice and generous corporations wouldn't change a single thing.

 

Another fine example of the United States middle class pricing themselves out of the job market. These jobs are going to continue to go overseas as long as low qualified employees use unions to inflate their wages. The amount of money you make should be dictated by how easy it is for your employer to replace you, not by a union.

[PurplePride92]

Another fine example of the United States middle class pricing themselves out of the job market. These jobs are going to continue to go overseas as long as low qualified employees use unions to inflate their wages. The amount of money you make should be dictated by how easy it is for your employer to replace you, not by a union.

 

So if the company keeps turning a nice profit the employees shouldn't want or ask for raises? Despite all of the work an employee does to help improve a company's financial standing the employee shouldn't want more of the pie? If I am making 100K a year and if the company can get someone for 45K to do my job I should take the pay cut to keep my job so that person doesn't get it or so my job doesn't go overseas?

[lynks66]

So if the company keeps turning a nice profit the employees shouldn't want or ask for raises? Despite all of the work an employee does to help improve a company's financial standing the employee shouldn't want more of the pie? If I am making 100K a year and if the company can get someone for 45K to do my job I should take the pay cut to keep my job so that person doesn't get it or so my job doesn't go overseas?

 

If I'm running a company and I am paying someone $100k to do a job that could be done by someone for $45k, then I should probably not be in a management position.

[doomer]

Another fine example of the United States middle class pricing themselves out of the job market. These jobs are going to continue to go overseas as long as low qualified employees use unions to inflate their wages. The amount of money you make should be dictated by how easy it is for your employer to replace you, not by a union.

 

So if the company keeps turning a nice profit the employees shouldn't want or ask for raises? Despite all of the work an employee does to help improve a company's financial standing the employee shouldn't want more of the pie? If I am making 100K a year and if the company can get someone for 45K to do my job I should take the pay cut to keep my job so that person doesn't get it or so my job doesn't go overseas? [/i]

 

 

The best situation is that a person's compensation is related to their value to the organization. The value will be established differently for different positions and responsibilities and in many positions the value is the market pay rate for these functions. I hope PP92 will agree that if wages or costs are disproportionately inflated (whether union or not) the organization will be at a competitive disadvantage. For the example of a company "sharing the wealth" as I paraphrase, the safe option is to pay market rates for associates with performance incentives so all enjoy the benefits of a good year without hampering the competitiveness of the organization during the down cycles.

[PurplePride92]

 

If I'm running a company and I am paying someone $100k to do a job that could be done by someone for $45k, then I should probably not be in a management position.

 

:lol:

 

Good point. Bad example on my part. :lol:

[PurplePride92]

Another fine example of the United States middle class pricing themselves out of the job market. These jobs are going to continue to go overseas as long as low qualified employees use unions to inflate their wages. The amount of money you make should be dictated by how easy it is for your employer to replace you, not by a union.

 

So if the company keeps turning a nice profit the employees shouldn't want or ask for raises? Despite all of the work an employee does to help improve a company's financial standing the employee shouldn't want more of the pie? If I am making 100K a year and if the company can get someone for 45K to do my job I should take the pay cut to keep my job so that person doesn't get it or so my job doesn't go overseas? [/i]

 

 

The best situation is that a person's compensation is related to their value to the organization. The value will be established differently for different positions and responsibilities and in many positions the value is the market pay rate for these functions. I hope PP92 will agree that if wages or costs are disproportionately inflated (whether union or not) the organization will be at a competitive disadvantage. For the example of a company "sharing the wealth" as I paraphrase, the safe option is to pay market rates for associates with performance incentives so all enjoy the benefits of a good year without hampering the competitiveness of the organization during the down cycles.

 

I definitely agree.

 

I also think that if profits are down and the company is in a financial pinch that unions need to act accordingly come contract time and do what is best for the entire organization and not just the union. If there isn't any wealth to share then it's time to work together and make wealth again. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

[Larry Warner]

So if the company keeps turning a nice profit the employees shouldn't want or ask for raises? Despite all of the work an employee does to help improve a company's financial standing the employee shouldn't want more of the pie? If I am making 100K a year and if the company can get someone for 45K to do my job I should take the pay cut to keep my job so that person doesn't get it or so my job doesn't go overseas?

 

If I am a company manager, and you are making $100 k to do a job that someone can and is willing to do for 45, I better replace you with the 45 or I should be fired. I just don't believe, for instance, that a person who works on an auto assembly line should be making over $30 an hour, time and a half over 40, and double time on Sundays. This means that an employee is making six figures to do a job that, as their contract states, any employee in the company must be able to do. Why should a job pay six figures when it can be done by anyone. The pay isn't matching the skills, which takes away the ability for a company to stay competitive in the market. $45,000 a year is a good living wage. Jobs like that are disappearing because, somewhere along the line, unions decided that their members should be making management wages to do a labor job.

[Dlbdonn]

I don't know where you live but $45,000 is a decent wage but certainly not what I would call a good living wage ,and there is no magic in being in a management position . In my union you might be an ordinary fitter or welder on one jobsite and on the next you might be the foreman in charge of a crew or a general foreman in charge of a # of crews and you are still a member of the same Union . Pay of course is commensurate to your level of responsibility ,but because you are a supervisor on one job is no guarantee that you will be in that position on the next job .

[Bluegrasscard]

Caught a segment on "How the States" got their shapes. Somehow they were focused on Unionization.

 

They asked lots of people to guess the 'most unionized' state per percentage of workers. A: New York

 

 

Unions used to view 'management' as the enemy. In today's global world hopefully unions and management focus on keeping keeping and growing jobs in the US. While there is fighting between the two functions year after year the threat of jobs leaving overseas is greater than ever. Companies and unions need to keep the American work competitive and better that workers from other countries.

 

At the end of the segment above they had a management or non-Union person and union representative and both agreed the goal was to create more and better jobs for all. The hosted acted surprised at the common agreement.

[Larry Warner]

I don't know where you live but $45,000 is a decent wage but certainly not what I would call a good living wage ,and there is no magic in being in a management position . In my union you might be an ordinary fitter or welder on one jobsite and on the next you might be the foreman in charge of a crew or a general foreman in charge of a # of crews and you are still a member of the same Union . Pay of course is commensurate to your level of responsibility ,but because you are a supervisor on one job is no guarantee that you will be in that position on the next job .

I am not talking about supervisors who are members of the union. I am talking about non-union management. My point was that a job's pay should match the skill of the employee required to do the job. At least if you are in a trade union you have the skill of your trade. UAW employees have no marketable skill. They do a job that anyone off the street can be trained to do in a very short amount of time. Therefore, their wages should be in no way close to what they make. $45,000 a year is a very good paycheck for a line worker. As long as we think it is not, those jobs will continue to disappear in this country. How many Americans do you think would be very happy with $45 k a year right now??

[Dlbdonn]

Anybody not making 45,000 a year .All supervisers should belong to the same Union as the people that they supervise . Managers are different and should not .

[PurplePride92]

If I am a company manager, and you are making $100 k to do a job that someone can and is willing to do for 45, I better replace you with the 45 or I should be fired. I just don't believe, for instance, that a person who works on an auto assembly line should be making over $30 an hour, time and a half over 40, and double time on Sundays. This means that an employee is making six figures to do a job that, as their contract states, any employee in the company must be able to do. Why should a job pay six figures when it can be done by anyone. The pay isn't matching the skills, which takes away the ability for a company to stay competitive in the market. $45,000 a year is a good living wage. Jobs like that are disappearing because, somewhere along the line, unions decided that their members should be making management wages to do a labor job.

 

I made a bad example. 100K to 45K is too huge a disparity.

 

No. Somewhere along the way unions realized that the labor jobs should be making more than minimum wage and working without healthcare for a company that makes millions and millions of dollars.

 

I think you are underestimating the skill level of some union workers. Corning pays around 125K per apprenticeship. Once out of the apprenticeship a mechanic will make at least 60K per year. In a busy year with available overtime at least 80K. Not everyone can be a mechanic. If you don't pass the test to get into the apprenticeship then you can't be a mechanic. There are tons of people here at the plant who can't pass the test. Not everyone can be a mechanic.

[Larry Warner]

I made a bad example. 100K to 45K is too huge a disparity.

 

No. Somewhere along the way unions realized that the labor jobs should be making more than minimum wage and working without healthcare for a company that makes millions and millions of dollars.

 

I think you are underestimating the skill level of some union workers. Corning pays around 125K per apprenticeship. Once out of the apprenticeship a mechanic will make at least 60K per year. In a busy year with available overtime at least 80K. Not everyone can be a mechanic. If you don't pass the test to get into the apprenticeship then you can't be a mechanic. There are tons of people here at the plant who can't pass the test. Not everyone can be a mechanic.

This is not the case for Unions like the UAW, which are the poster children for pricing jobs out of the country. The union has made it so the weakest, least healthy person must be able to do every job in the plant. Everyone must make the same base wage in the plant, which is $31.50 per hour. You can't get fired for being away from your post while on the clock until the 5th time you are caught. Each job has to be broken down to where it takes no skill to complete so it can fit the criteria mentioned above. How can anyone expect auto plants not to be opened across the border under these conditions. BTW, I think 60-70 is a good level for a line worker to retire at, but to start that high still seems excessive for the education level required. I also think out idea of a living wage is different. I think a living wage is one where you can afford a house and other items considered necessary in our country. However, combined incomes of over six figures is far and away upper middle class. Every worker in our country is simply not going to have those means. Companies can't stay competitive in a world economy providing that type of compensation. Like you said earlier, not everyone can be a mechanic. Not everyone can make that type of salary. The UAW seems to think differently. Of course, they don't believe the stockholders should keep the profit.