This is why they kneel

[valade16]

I have a fabricated world view.

Righty.

Yours is just crystal clear.

If a job is offered at a certain wage and the employer has little to no trouble getting people to take that wage, then that is what the job is worth.

If you don't think it's worth $10 an hour to flip burgers …quit. Someone else will take the job because that is about what it is worth. You want to strike, as is your right, feel free to do so. Someone will take the job or they will automate you out (which is what is happening now), The way to make more $$$ is to make yourself worth more than the next guy (nah…way too much trouble). If your skills are that good, an employer will pay more for it. Just like if I want a better car (or suit, or shoes, or watch) I will pay more for it.

And something to consider…open borders and letting in all these unskilled people depresses wages as much as anything else. People at the low end of the salary scale are competing with more and more people at the low end of the salary scale. But just keep letting 'me in. That's the nice thing to do.

Here's the problem with your view: the best burger flipper on earth is still only going to get... $10. So the superior employee there doesn't actually make any more money. This is true of hundreds of thousands of jobs (the best Amazon warehouse worker will make... exactly as much as every other warehouse worker. The best Walmart greeter will make... exactly as much as every other greeter).

So these companies are not actually paying their superior workers any more money for being superior workers. They are only paying the superior workers who move up to superior jobs (which is very few) more money.

So really, what you're saying is if you're a superior worker the best way to make more money is to actually leave the job because being a superior worker doesn't pay you any more at that job.

[Sluggo1]

There are way too many layers to be making the kind of general statements some of you are making regarding pay scales. I'd be surprised to find out how many have any real experience setting wages for a company's employees, with or without a union involved.

Probably true.

Generally, the cream rises to the top.

[SiteWolf]

Here's the problem with your view: the best burger flipper on earth is still only going to get... $10. So the superior employee there doesn't actually make any more money. This is true of hundreds of thousands of jobs (the best Amazon warehouse worker will make... exactly as much as every other warehouse worker. The best Walmart greeter will make... exactly as much as every other greeter).

So these companies are not actually paying their superior workers any more money for being superior workers. They are only paying the superior workers who move up to superior jobs (which is very few) more money.

So really, what you're saying is if you're a superior worker the best way to make more money is to actually leave the job because being a superior worker doesn't pay you any more at that job.

That's simply not true....every Amazon warehouse worker makes the same? c'mon, they'd have starting wages, intermediate wages, and top wages......you can say a group of workers may reach the max for their position sooner than others, but you're also talking largely unskilled labor. I don't need a degree to flip a burger, but I also can't expect to be paid according to my education level to do a job that doesn't benefit from my having a degree. Companies pay superior workers by offering them higher responsibility and better positions.

[flips333]

And I a sure that there are lousy employees that are good at negotiating and manages to get themselves over paid.

What is your real point here?? We have to take extra special care of poor negotiators??? What about the guy that can't write a decent memo??? Special care for him too??? Sloppy eaters in the lunchroom???What do we do about them??? And my pet peeve…the guy that wears a brown belt with black shoes. What do we do with them???

My point is simply you are advancing a view that seems rational, but is divorced from reality. You think that simply because an employee is good they will be paid more. That's nonsense. In a capitalistic society I do not have pressure to pay what the job's worth... In fact, order to make money I HAVE to pay less than it's worth. Or I do not make money off you.

[SiteWolf]

And my pet peeve…the guy that wears a brown belt with black shoes. What do we do with them???

[valade16]

That's simply not true....every Amazon warehouse worker makes the same? c'mon, they'd have starting wages, intermediate wages, and top wages......you can say a group of workers may reach the max for their position sooner than others, but you're also talking largely unskilled labor. I don't need a degree to flip a burger, but I also can't expect to be paid according to my education level to do a job that doesn't benefit from my having a degree. Companies pay superior workers by offering them higher responsibility and better positions.

Yes Amazon warehouse workers have small variable in their wages, but it's all low. Workers make between $9-$20 (and much of that difference is due to the minimum wage laws, not paying more for superior performance), and the average job is $15 an hour. Point is, the most you will ever make as an Amazon warehouse worker, no matter how good you are, is around $20. Amazon will never pay an employee $30 or $45 an hour even if they are the greatest warehouse worker walking the earth.

And yes, companies reward superior workers with higher responsibility and better positions, but there are only so many to go around. If a company has 4 awesome workers and only one manager position, only one of them are going to see an increase in job/pay. The other 3 awesome workers will not get paid any more for being awesome. The company is not going to make all 4 managers.

[SiteWolf]

My point is simply you are advancing a view that seems rational, but is divorced from reality. You think that simply because an employee is good they will be paid more. That's nonsense. In a capitalistic society I do not have pressure to pay what the job's worth... In fact, order to make money I HAVE to pay less than it's worth. Or I do not make money off you.

Well that's not quite true. If I constantly pay below market value to my employees, guess what happens? I lose my better employees and struggle to replace them with good employees. And I can most definitely make money while still paying people what they're worth, in fact I'm likely to make more because a company full of good employees will produce a better overall product.

[Sluggo1]

My point is simply you are advancing a view that seems rational, but is divorced from reality. You think that simply because an employee is good they will be paid more. That's nonsense. In a capitalistic society I do not have pressure to pay what the job's worth... In fact, order to make money I HAVE to pay less than it's worth. Or I do not make money off you.

So you can get away with a view that is divorced from being rational that you paint as reality.

More people leave non union jobs than union jobs………why is that?? Maybe because if you are good and unrewarded you will go somewhere where you are rewarded. No sense leaving a union, they're all rewarded.

No unions……very few get what they don't deserve. Good employees move up.

Unions……many get what they don't deserve and all move up together.

I worked for a company for over twenty years, was part of senior management. I could count on one hane the number of people that were promoted to positions that they didn't deserve.

[valade16]

So you can get away with a view that is divorced from being rational that you paint as reality.

More people leave non union jobs than union jobs………why is that?? Maybe because if you are good and unrewarded you will go somewhere where you are rewarded. No sense leaving a union, they're all rewarded.

No unions……very few get what they don't deserve. Good employees move up.

Unions……many get what they don't deserve and all move up together.

I worked for a company for over twenty years, was part of senior management. I could count on one hane the number of people that were promoted to positions that they didn't deserve.

This is not true. Are you under the impression that good workers don't move up faster or take higher paying positions with more responsibility?

[valade16]

It's also important to note that in Non-Union jobs there's a tremendous amount of quality people who aren't moving up at jobs for various reasons. The number one reason cited for leaving a job is bad management, so obviously not everyone who is getting promoted to these senior positions is a superior employee.

[SiteWolf]

Yes Amazon warehouse workers have small variable in their wages, but it's all low. Workers make between $9-$20 (and much of that difference is due to the minimum wage laws, not paying more for superior performance), and the average job is $15 an hour. Point is, the most you will ever make as an Amazon warehouse worker, no matter how good you are, is around $20. Amazon will never pay an employee $30 or $45 an hour even if they are the greatest warehouse worker walking the earth.

And yes, companies reward superior workers with higher responsibility and better positions, but there are only so many to go around. If a company has 4 awesome workers and only one manager position, only one of them are going to see an increase in job/pay. The other 3 awesome workers will not get paid any more for being awesome. The company is not going to make all 4 managers.

A variance of $11/hr is hardly 'all making the same' but yeah, would it not be logical for wages to top out according to the job performed more than just based on who performed it? Would you pay more for your quarter-pounder at McD's if someone with a masters in poli sci made it? Or even someone who'd been doing it for 5 years vs someone who'd been doing it for 1 year?

[ewing]

Of course you doubt it's true, it goes against your fabricated worldview. Yes, Amazon has Senior people who get paid more. Glad to see you admitting the truth: you want to get rid of Unions so that the CEOs and upper management can get paid more. But the workers will get paid less (but that's OK with you).

Businesses will not pay what a job is worth, they will pay as little as they can. Your argument is however little they pay is what the job is worth. Under your premise, the vast majority will make less, and the few upper management types will make more. That seems sensible to you because your end goal is to pay your employees as little as possible.

You want to frame this as Unions keep superior employees from getting paid more, but that's not really true. What will happen is 99% will get paid less and 1% will get paid more. But of course you're OK with this so long as you're in the 1% (because **** the 99% am I right?)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joeyc77]

First Bolded: You say that, but do you back it up? If I remember correctly, you defended Stop and Frisk, which is exactly what you're saying you're against.

Second Bolded: Of course I see how the Union exacerbates this problem. But just because one Union is corrupt is not justification to get rid of all Unions anymore than saying because Enron was corrupt we should get rid of all corporations...

Third Bolded: Except there is no real moral ambiguity on racism, everyone (except for the extreme fringe minority) believe it is wrong. So saying I'm trying to shove morality down your throat is saying you don't believe racism is wrong and I'm trying to shove that morality down your throat.

Fourth Bolded: Why not? We have the goal of eradicating Rape and Child Sex Trafficking. Should we not have those goals because they are unachievable?

Fifth Bolded: I do see how it plays out, but it's always going to play out this way so long as one side literally denies the validity of the other sides position. What compromise can there be when one side literally doesn't believe in the problem?

First: I have no idea what you’re referring. How do I prove police cannot violate someone’s rights for any reason, including racism? Laws... I mean police “can” violate someone’s rights. I’m saying it’s illegal and we can’t stand for it

Second: public sector unions are not all unions. While I don’t like private unions because I believe they harm the economy, that’s different than public sector unions which have a philosophy which contradicts their purpose- to be civil servants.

Third: but there is ambiguity in what is racist and what is not. The word has become deflated in its impact because everything is racist. That’s why Rights and violating them are important. Because rights are objective. Racism is subjected. It’s possible to be racist and not violate someone’s rights.

Fourth: This shows you don’t understand the difference between something that is objective and something that is subjective. Rape and child sex trafficking are objective violations of someone’s rights. Racism is subjective. Racism also mostly exists in someone’s mind or heart. To use your example, it’s like a 40 year old guy who dates or likes 18/19 year old girls because he likes them young. Perfectly legal to do but kinda creepy.

Fifth: Rights. The compromise is rights. Because those are objective measures which can be impacted through legislation. Wanting to ban both the police and teachers unions seems like a compromise to me as both industries have a negative impact in the inner cities.

[Sluggo1]

This is not true. Are you under the impression that good workers don't move up faster or take higher paying positions with more responsibility?

Union contracts pay members at various levels the same pay. If you have 100 people making the same opay for the same job, it stands to reason that someone must be better than the others.

Union members also show more loyalty to their union than they do to their employer (you know, the guy that is actually paying them.) Non union members would tend to have more company loyalty. And this point should not be understated. Loyal employees are usually contented employees and contented employees are more productive.

Unions produce an us vs them mentality. "That's no my job. that's not in the contract. I don't have to do that. I'm entitled to XXX."

This does not work well in my opinion.

[mngopher35]

Teachers unions are similar to police unions. Go figure we have an issue with both the police force and education.

I’ve went through this multiple times as well. The concept of unions is bad in the public sector because the people who are responsible for their salaries are the same people who they serve-civilians. This means when members are banning together for something it holds individuals with know direct accountability responsible since tax money is funneled through the government. Governments don’t operate like corporations in that they do not profit. They are on a budget. Yet a portion of this budget goes to inflated salaries, pensions and benefits which have been negotiated years prior. Teachers get tenure after so many years, which essentially means that can’t be fired for doing a poor job.

We don’t hear about the issues in other public sector unions because those unions don’t have as much of a direct impact on civilians as police and teachers do. But the concepts are still negative. Corporations can be greedy. Their only purpose is to earn profits. If they don’t earn profits, they go bankrupt (or at least they should). Governments don’t benefit from profits. Governments also can’t go bankrupt.

They might be similar in a couple ways/issues but are not the same and it is not the sector I repeatedly was mentioning previously with you responding but not sharing any proof (firefighters, USPS, garbage).

You keep saying "the concept of unions is bad in the public sector" and then generalizing points that are not necessarily true. Governments still care about money and balancing budgets, there is still plenty of the same pressures to produce cost effectively. This was covered already and people didn't respond to that aspect either. They have a budget as you say and negotiated good salaries due to the unions, without them they might start making tons of cuts around pay/safety of employees to get more out of said budget in other ways. I agree, sometimes there are issues like a bad teacher and we should work on creating better standards around these individual issues within each sector.

The concept is your opinion and you have regularly only looked at this one way based on that opinion while ignoring everything else and have provided no proof at all in any way of reality of those other sectors being bad. This is why you never went in depth or provided real detail as I noted. You are just using association of the worst aspects of some unions, inserting your extreme opinion of all must be bad due to it and not providing anything else.