Wages down 23% since 2008. Bank profits near record levels.

[FaninAma]

Hope and change came true......if you are a big banker.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/11/U-S-Wages-Down-23-Since-2008

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-profits-racing-to-near-record-levels-1407773976

Also, in the first article the figure of the number of households in large urban areas earning $35,000 or less is very interesting since this is the part of the country that supplies the Democrats with the overwhelming majority of their votes.

[REDREX]

Welcome to the Obama/Liberal economy

[Skysooner]

Hmm, my salary is up 41% since 2008 and overall compensation is more like 220% in the same time frame. Strange....

[okie52]

Hmm, my salary is up 41% since 2008 and overall compensation is more like 220% in the same time frame. Strange....

Things have been good in the oil patch for over a decade. Think that's true in most industries?

[TAFBSooner]

Welcome to the Obama/Liberal economy

I believe the Obama part. But I'm a liberal, and this is no liberal economy.

[TAFBSooner]

Hope and change came true......if you are a big banker.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/11/U-S-Wages-Down-23-Since-2008

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banking-industry-profits-racing-to-near-record-levels-1407773976

Also, in the first article the figure of the number of households in large urban areas earning $35,000 or less is very interesting since this is the part of the country that supplies the Democrats with the overwhelming majority of their votes.

The banksters weren't "hoping" for no "change" in the status quo, they PAID for it, and that's what they got.

Except that instead of a mortgage backed securities bubble, they are building a rental-stream backed securities bubble, ****ing over many of the same people, and using many of the same physical houses that they sucked up after the 2008 collapse.

[FaninAma]

Hmm, my salary is up 41% since 2008 and overall compensation is more like 220% in the same time frame. Strange....
And this is pertinent to the assertions of the article how? Or are you saying you are a banker?

[REDREX]

I believe the Obama part. But I'm a liberal, and this is no liberal economy.===Higher taxes----more regulation ---Obamacare----- a Liberals wet dream ----How can you not think that does not affect the economy?

[Skysooner]

Things have been good in the oil patch for over a decade. Think that's true in most industries?

In many it is yes. Real estate is actually really good right now too. It depends on the sector, but blaming Obama on something that was decades in the making is bs.

[Skysooner]

And this is pertinent to the assertions of the article how? Or are you saying you are a banker?

I am nowhere close to banking. I know many people who are doing pretty well in this economy. Others aren't so much. The young, the lesser educated or people who can't move to the jobs are having lots of problems. This was decades in the making, but it was also necessary. Do you honestly think this country could have stayed on a manufacturing base with the rise of China/India/Brazil, etc? There are global factors working here.

[FaninAma]

In many it is yes. Real estate is actually really good right now too. It depends on the sector, but blaming Obama on something that was decades in the making is bs.
Home ownership is approaching an all time low. If you consider hedge funds and deep pocketed investors buying up large percentages of homes in hot urban sectors as constituting a booming real estate market then you have a different definition of what good means. Good for hedge funds and banks? Yes. Good for the average home owner? No.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-to-lowest-in-19-years.html

Of course you know what a bastion of right wing propaganda Bloomberg is. LOL.

[Sooner8th]

Am I the only here who is laughing at the irony of conservatives complaining , as well as blaming, obama for exactly what conservatives have been wanting and trying to do for decades - lowering wages and increasing corporate profits.

Like I've said before, even when he does EXACTLY what you want, you still bitch about it.

[FaninAma]

Am I the only here who is laughing at the irony of conservatives complaining , as well as blaming, obama for exactly what conservatives have been wanting and trying to do for decades - lowering wages and increasing corporate profits.

Like I've said before, even when he does EXACTLY what you want, you still bitch about it.
You are freaking hopeless. I have railed against Bush's crony capitalism policies until I am blue in the face but like a good little cultist you refuse to direct even the mildest criticism toward your charismatic cult leader Obama.

[Sooner8th]

You are freaking hopeless. I have railed against Bush's crony capitalism policies until I am blue in the face but like a good little cultist you refuse to direct even the mildest criticism toward your charismatic cult leader Obama.

Try reading what I wrote again.

[TAFBSooner]

Am I the only here who is laughing at the irony of conservatives complaining , as well as blaming, obama for exactly what conservatives have been wanting and trying to do for decades - lowering wages and increasing corporate profits.

Like I've said before, even when he does EXACTLY what you want, you still bitch about it.

Of course rank and file conservatives don't want lower wages. But they believe the elite conservatives when those elites say conservative policies will be good for everyone, or at least the top 60%.

We used to have a genuine 1%er conservative on this board. But Sic'Em has found better things to do with his trust fund.

[TAFBSooner]

===Higher taxes----more regulation ---Obamacare----- a Liberals wet dream ----How can you not think that does not affect the economy?

Nobody from Wall Street has appeared in an orange jumpsuit yet. Obama works for the crony capitalists (aka the 1%). Obamacare has been good for the insurance corporations, no matter what its impact on the rest of us (which is mixed).

Most importantly, a real liberal response to the 2008 crash would be an actual jobs program a la WPA/CCC, not the bank bailout and tepid stimulus that we actually got in 2009.

BTW, congratulations if you're in a tax bracket that saw an increase - you're doing well!

[Sooner8th]

Of course rank and file conservatives don't want lower wages. But they believe the elite conservatives when those elites say conservative policies will be good for everyone, or at least the top 60%.

We used to have a genuine 1%er conservative on this board. But Sic'Em has found better things to do with his trust fund.

I have to disagree, living in Kansas with a very strong union presence, all of our friends are rightwings and each and everyone of them bitterly complains about how much union workers make and how it is killing the companies. Never mind they have never worked for anyone who had a union. Hell, even the guys who worked at these plants hated unions.

[TAFBSooner]

I have to disagree, living in Kansas with a very strong union presence, all of our friends are rightwings and each and everyone of them bitterly complains about how much union workers make and how it is killing the companies. Never mind they have never worked for anyone who had a union. Hell, even the guys who worked at these plants hated unions.

Thank you Readers Digest, at least in the 1960's and '70's. For just ONE example of anti-union propaganda.

It's not the workers, union or otherwise, who have screwed up our economy. It's the parasitic crony capitalists. Wall Streeters aren't just parasites that dip their beaks in the passing stream, letting the host continue on as before. No, they are the Toxoplasma gondii of our economy, changing the behavior of the whole so it benefits them while wrecking the larger economy.

[/rant]

[Sooner8th]

Thank you Readers Digest, at least in the 1960's and '70's. For just ONE example of anti-union propaganda.

It's not the workers, union or otherwise, who have screwed up our economy. It's the parasitic crony capitalists. Wall Streeters aren't just parasites that dip their beaks in the passing stream, letting the host continue on as before. No, they are the Toxoplasma gondii of our economy, changing the behavior of the whole so it benefits them while wrecking the larger economy.

[/rant]

Thank you readers digest? I was making the point the rank and file conservatives do want to have lower wages, they just think it should be someone else's not theirs.

I agree with what you are saying. These same people who think a guy on the factory floor making 40-50k a year is massively overpaid, but some wall street type who brings in millions if not billions not only earned but is entitled to it.

[TAFBSooner]

Thank you readers digest? I was making the point the rank and file conservatives do want to have lower wages, they just think it should be someone else's not theirs.

I agree with what you are saying. These same people who think a guy on the factory floor making 40-50k a year is massively overpaid, but some wall street type who brings in millions if not billions not only earned but is entitled to it.

Every issue of Reader's Digest back then had an article about how unions were thuggish, churly, dangerous, and uncouth. I think it's natural to hate on parasites; I don't think it's natural to hate on other people who are working for a living - they had to be propagandized into it.

[Sooner8th]

Every issue of Reader's Digest back then had an article about how unions were thuggish, churly, dangerous, and uncouth. I think it's natural to hate on parasites; I don't think it's natural to hate on other people who are working for a living - they had to be propagandized into it.

Yeah, unions = communism and medicare and medicaid is socialized medicine.

The part that kills me is they don't mind white collar making all they can, but boy some guy on the shop floor wants a union? It'll kill the company!

[pphilfran]

Unions are not value added...

Unions will not magically turn a poor operated company into a world class company...

Working in manufacturing for a couple of decades did show me that some facilities needed a union...it still didn't save them, but I couldn't imagine the working environment without a union in some of those facilities...

[Sooner8th]

Unions are not value added...

Unions will not magically turn a poor operated company into a world class company...

Working in manufacturing for a couple of decades did show me that some facilities needed a union...it still didn't save them, but I couldn't imagine the working environment without a union in some of those facilities...

Turning a poorly run company into a world class company is not what unions are for. The union is to give non-management workers some leverage on wages and working conditions. Now if management wants a world class company the union will work with them to achieve it. Unions don't drive companies into bankruptcy, poor management does.

[pphilfran]

A well run company wouldn't need a union since they would also be offering more than attractive compensation packages...

Sadly, we see far too many companies that will cut compensation to the bone to improve short term profit margins...these are the companies that need a union and I don't classify them as a well run company....

I worked in multiple facilities over the years...union and non union...the non union facilities were far more efficient and had far better management/employer relations....

I got along well with the union and was respected far more than most....there were still times that made me want to pull my hair out....to be honest those moments happened in non union plants also....

[Sooner8th]

A well run company wouldn't need a union since they would also be offering more than attractive compensation packages...

Sadly, we see far too many companies that will cut compensation to the bone to improve short term profit margins...these are the companies that need a union and I don't classify them as a well run company....

I worked in multiple facilities over the years...union and non union...the non union facilities were far more efficient and had far better management/employer relations....

I got along well with the union and was respected far more than most....there were still times that made me want to pull my hair out....to be honest those moments happened in non union plants also....

Was it the unions who made them less efficient? Or was it always that way?

[REDREX]

Turning a poorly run company into a world class company is not what unions are for. The union is to give non-management workers some leverage on wages and working conditions. Now if management wants a world class company the union will work with them to achieve it. Unions don't drive companies into bankruptcy, poor management does.--- "Unions will work with them to achieve it"----That's funny----------By far the worst are the Gov't employee Unions

[pphilfran]

Was it the unions who made them less efficient? Or was it always that way?

I can't say for sure but I am fairly certain it had been that way for eternity...

One of my assigned duties at one plant was to try and turn around management/associate relationships...it was mind boggling how much animosity in the place...

I can tell you that the union fought tooth and nail to limit technology improvement which translated to less long term jobs....even with the efficiency advances (and they were significant) the company did not lay off any associates and eventually reduced manning through retirement (plant was built in the 60's and was being gutted and set up with state of the art equipment)

[REDREX]

I can't say for sure but I am fairly certain it had been that way for eternity...

One of my assigned duties at one plant was to try and turn around management/associate relationships...it was mind boggling how much animosity in the place...

I can tell you that the union fought tooth and nail to limit technology improvement which translated to less long term jobs....even with the efficiency advances (and they were significant) the company did not lay off any associates and eventually reduced manning through retirement (plant was built in the 60's and was being gutted and set up with state of the art equipment)---Hostess went broke in large part to Union problems------Can someone tell me why you can't have a truck carry both bread and twinkies ?

[pphilfran]

In the 70's manufacturing was attempting to change from 50's/60's style of management (Theory X) to current management style (Theory Y)..

This was a major change to the old managers...many couldn't adapt....

[pphilfran]

---Hostess went broke in large part to Union problems------Can someone tell me why you can't have a truck carry both bread and twinkies ?

Hostess was a combination of Union, management, and heavy competition...their business had eroded so far that I don't think combining the routes would have saved em...

[Sooner8th]

---Hostess went broke in large part to Union problems------Can someone tell me why you can't have a truck carry both bread and twinkies ?

It was a lot more that food tastes changed.

[pphilfran]

Tastes have changed but in the end they were as expensive as hell and Little Debbie with it's independent distributer network was kicking their ***..

[REDREX]

It was a lot more that food tastes changed.----But it shows the type of crap that Unions bring----My first job out of college I had a grievance filed against me because I moved a fork lift----No operator was around but someone had to move it to let the EMT people get to the man having the seizure-----First taste of Union BS

[rock on sooner]

Okay, listen up....
I just read through this thread and I'm certain that no one even has
any idea the root cause of lower wages. Here it is, you own a business
that survived the bust but had to lay off 2/3 of your staff to stay afloat..
clear so far? With smart managing of assets, staff, cash flow and distribution,
you made it through. Now your orders are up, production is strained to meet
those orders, so you hire staff, many of which, worked for you in the past.
You told these folks at rehiring you were forced to pay lower wages than before.
Offered them the choice, they took it and came back on board, looking to the
future, just like you. You are paying 20-23% lower wages to get back where
you all want to be, knowing that if your projections are accurate, you'll be able
to get your valuable staff back to where they were and on the track to be better.

Last time I looked at Business 101, that's the way things were/are! So, yep, wages
will be lower, employment will be up! Both of these statistics will be solid measuring
points and,eventually, all will be better than before and all will be happy....the bosses
will pay lower wages and earn more money just because, just because.....

On the surface, already recovered is all the lost jobs (in terms of numbers), lower wages!?
Yep, these really smart business people see the best way forward.....jus' sayin'..

[Sooner8th]

Okay, listen up....
I just read through this thread and I'm certain that no one even has
any idea the root cause of lower wages. Here it is, you own a business
that survived the bust but had to lay off 2/3 of your staff to stay afloat..
clear so far? With smart managing of assets, staff, cash flow and distribution,
you made it through. Now your orders are up, production is strained to meet
those orders, so you hire staff, many of which, worked for you in the past.
You told these folks at rehiring you were forced to pay lower wages than before.
Offered them the choice, they took it and came back on board, looking to the
future, just like you. You are paying 20-23% lower wages to get back where
you all want to be, knowing that if your projections are accurate, you'll be able
to get your valuable staff back to where they were and on the track to be better.

Last time I looked at Business 101, that's the way things were/are! So, yep, wages
will be lower, employment will be up! Both of these statistics will be solid measuring
points and,eventually, all will be better than before and all will be happy....the bosses
will pay lower wages and earn more money just because, just because.....

On the surface, already recovered is all the lost jobs (in terms of numbers), lower wages!?
Yep, these really smart business people see the best way forward.....jus' sayin'..

No one with any sense is arguing anything different, that is what i pointed out when I posted it was at 12% in 2001-02 which was a much shallower recession. We lost so many jobs it will take years to gain them back and wages to return, but I feel like you say above, businesses are getting use to having fewer employees and making them more productive. What galls me is the difference in how pay for executives vs. workers is handled. Huge raises and bonuses for management, CEO's and board members, but try to get the minimum wage raised to $10.10 an hour and people act like your breaking into fort knox.

[olevetonahill]

Unions Suck donkey dick

[SCOUT]

No one with any sense is arguing anything different, that is what i pointed out when I posted it was at 12% in 2001-02 which was a much shallower recession. We lost so many jobs it will take years to gain them back and wages to return, but I feel like you say above, businesses are getting use to having fewer employees and making them more productive. What galls me is the difference in how pay for executives vs. workers is handled. Huge raises and bonuses for management, CEO's and board members, but try to get the minimum wage raised to $10.10 an hour and people act like your breaking into fort knox.

Again with your sweeping statements. You choose a specific subject and blanket it across a wide group. I will give you points for consistency.

[olevetonahill]

Again with your sweeping statements. You choose a specific subject and blanket it across a wide group. I will give you points for consistency.

Scout, Life is so much more pleasant when you that Moronic Dildo on ignore. You can see he's blathering on but you dont read it.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Scout, Life is so much more pleasant when you that Moronic Dildo on ignore. You can see he's blathering on but you dont read it.

That's like driving by a car crash and not looking.

[olevetonahill]

That's like driving by a car crash and not looking.

I know, but Our Season is about to start. I aint in the mood to put up with his brand of Crazy right now. maybe later on.

[rock on sooner]

Unions Suck donkey dick

Remember, last year, I think, when we had the long thread about
different experiences we all had with unions? By and large, I agree
with you...

[Sooner8th]

Again with your sweeping statements. You choose a specific subject and blanket it across a wide group. I will give you points for consistency.



No one with any sense is arguing anything different, that is what i pointed out when I posted it was at 12% in 2001-02 which was a much shallower recession. We lost so many jobs it will take years to gain them back and wages to return, but I feel like you say above, businesses are getting use to having fewer employees and making them more productive. What galls me is the difference in how pay for executives vs. workers is handled. Huge raises and bonuses for management, CEO's and board members, but try to get the minimum wage raised to $10.10 an hour and people act like your breaking into fort knox.

How is this taking a specific subject and blanket it across a wide group? Look at the data of pay for ceo's and the what this thread is about 23% lower pay for new jobs than the jobs that were lost. You can't argue the point so you bitch about how I present it.

[olevetonahill]

Remember, last year, I think, when we had the long thread about
different experiences we all had with unions? By and large, I agree
with you...

Yup, I been on both sides of the deal , Bout the only thing Unions are good for now is corrupt union bosses

[Sooner8th]

Again with your sweeping statements. You choose a specific subject and blanket it across a wide group. I will give you points for consistency.

How about this ignorant sweeping statement? Unions Suck donkey dick. Of course you agree with it so you don't bitch about it.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Unions have outlived their usefulness. They were a good idea in the 50's to the 70's, but now...not so much.

Well run companies take care of their employees...PERIOD. If anyone thinks for a minute that the UAW didn't have a hand in the auto industry crash...well, you are a fool.

With the birth and growth of Human Resources in just about every company...employees do not have the same issues they had in the past...and a company that succeeds over the long term...takes great care of their valuable employees. I personally think that the employees that have such a great desire to belong to a union...are substandard performers (not all, but many)

Unions should be a thing of the past...and I think in the future...they will be a distant memory.

[olevetonahill]

What he^ said

[REDREX]

I don't know look at all the great things that gov't unions have done for the Country as well as for States and Cities --------Well maybe not

[olevetonahill]

I don't know look at all the great things that gov't unions have done for the Country as well as for States and Cities --------Well maybe not

:highly_amused:

[rock on sooner]

The last company I worked for before retiring conducted seminars
for its management staff on how to spot organizers and coached
on how to respond to union attempts to organize, correct answers
to employee questions, the veracity of union claims, etc. even so
far as to point out the exact locations where organizers were allowed
to stand. Some companies go so far as to close "underperforming"
stores to keep the unions out.

Sooner in Tampa is spot on. The unions were useful early on, helping
to protect workers from literal abusive employers, creating 40 hour
work week, integrating health benefits into employee packages, etc.
Now, it appears that most "unionizing" is only to increase the dues
pool, although I have seen once in a while where an existing union
highlighted some employer wrongdoings and protected their members,
but it doesn't happen often....

[pphilfran]

I have been in a few manufacturing facilities that I would never work for without a union...the management groups in those locations would have been an overbearing dictatorship without a union....I was shocked at the way management treated the union and the way the union treated management....

I had been in one place for about a month and decided to sit in on a counseling session..I can't remember the offense but the guy was going to get a couple days off without pay...

The meeting starts off with the Division Manager, James G., going over the details of the transgression....

Union argues about being unfair and not being consistent....

James G, and arrogant and aggressive piece of **** gets upset about the union bucking up to him....

Things get heated...they call each other every name in the book (and a few I had never heard before)

I stand up and tell em all to settle down and get back on topic...

Union man says screw that...he states that he hates James G so much he named his dog James and every day after work he kicks the **** out of it....

All the union members got up and walked out....

[pphilfran]

As far as minimum wage you can take it up to 10 bucks...it will have a minimal impact on retail prices in most industry....I am sure it will have a negative affect on job creation though I believe it too will have a small impact....

Our biggest problem is we have far too many low skilled workers...far too much supply so the employers have no reason to raise pay or benefits...

[BoulderSooner79]

The last company I worked for before retiring conducted seminars
for its management staff on how to spot organizers and coached
on how to respond to union attempts to organize, correct answers
to employee questions, the veracity of union claims, etc. even so
far as to point out the exact locations where organizers were allowed
to stand. Some companies go so far as to close "underperforming"
stores to keep the unions out.

Sooner in Tampa is spot on. The unions were useful early on, helping
to protect workers from literal abusive employers, creating 40 hour
work week, integrating health benefits into employee packages, etc.
Now, it appears that most "unionizing" is only to increase the dues
pool, although I have seen once in a while where an existing union
highlighted some employer wrongdoings and protected their members,
but it doesn't happen often....

Unions often look silly, greedy and anti-competitive when they are not needed.
I ran into this when I was at a trade show in NYC and I picked up a rubber
mallet to help adjust my company's booth during setup. Union guys that saw
that and threatened to leave if I didn't drop the mallet. But it makes it
easy to forget why unions exist in the first place. Unions or some
other mechanism was desperately needed to improve working conditions.
And if all the union busting activities succeed, I guarantee working
conditions will degrade again for some class of worker because
competition creates silent pressure to do so. Unions are bad when
they have too much power just as employers do bad things when
workers have too little leverage. There needs to be a healthy equilibrium.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Public employee unions are holding back California.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Largest company I worked for was ATT. I have never in my life seen a company that the employees hated the company and the company hated the employees. Every rule the company mandated seemed to be nothing but spite toward the employee and the employees did everything they could to spite the company. IMO, the unions are no longer there for the employee, they are there for the dues.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Unions often look silly, greedy and anti-competitive when they are not needed.
I ran into this when I was at a trade show in NYC and I picked up a rubber
mallet to help adjust my company's booth during setup. Union guys that saw
that and threatened to leave if I didn't drop the mallet. But it makes it
easy to forget why unions exist in the first place. Unions or some
other mechanism was desperately needed to improve working conditions.
And if all the union busting activities succeed, I guarantee working
conditions will degrade again for some class of worker because
competition creates silent pressure to do so. Unions are bad when
they have too much power just as employers do bad things when
workers have too little leverage. There needs to be a healthy equilibrium.

My FIL told me a story about working in the chemical plants in WV. He said one night a manager got caught riding in a cushman cart that had a pair of channel locks in the back of it. The foreman went and told on him for having a wrench in his cushman. The manager was sent home for the night and one of the foremans workers got paid OT for the 12 hour shift because of it. **** like that is how the unions ****ed up.

[BoulderSooner79]

My FIL told me a story about working in the chemical plants in WV. He said one night a manager got caught riding in a cushman cart that had a pair of channel locks in the back of it. The foreman went and told on him for having a wrench in his cushman. The manager was sent home for the night and one of the foremans workers got paid OT for the 12 hour shift because of it. **** like that is how the unions ****ed up.

Yep, we've all hit those. And I'm not pro-Union per se, I just know there needs to
be a balance of power between employer/employees and unions have been
effective in many cases. I don't think government imposed labor laws would
do it because wealthy folks that own the companies will just buy enough
congressmen to dilute the laws over time.

BTW, my first job was at ATT too. As a programmer, I rarely showed up
before 9am. We had a union shop on site and during union contract negotiations,
my boss would make me show up before 8am as working hours were part of
the contract and us carefree programmers were not supposed to set a bad
example. 8am!? The horror.

[olevetonahill]

Largest company I worked for was ATT. I have never in my life seen a company that the employees hated the company and the company hated the employees. Every rule the company mandated seemed to be nothing but spite toward the employee and the employees did everything they could to spite the company. IMO, the unions are no longer there for the employee, they are there for the dues.

Like I said Ive been on both sides of this deal. I was a Teamster for years, If I wanted to work and make the Big bucks I not only had to Share my Good pay with the Union in Dues But also had to accidentally drop a few 100s a week in the Business managers office. Then it was a Night mare on the job.

[SCOUT]

Yep, we've all hit those. And I'm not pro-Union per se, I just know there needs to
be a balance of power between employer/employees and unions have been
effective in many cases. I don't think government imposed labor laws would
do it because wealthy folks that own the companies will just buy enough
congressmen to dilute the laws over time.

BTW, my first job was at ATT too. As a programmer, I rarely showed up
before 9am. We had a union shop on site and during union contract negotiations,
my boss would make me show up before 8am as working hours were part of
the contract and us carefree programmers were not supposed to set a bad
example. 8am!? The horror.
Don't you think that Unions, with forced dues, buy enough Congressmen to dilute the laws over time too?

[olevetonahill]

Don't you think that Unions, with forced dues, buy enough Congressmen to dilute the laws over time too?
The Union bosses been buyin and swayin votes for years

[SCOUT]

Nah just $100,000,000 in 2010. And that is just a few of the unions

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/afl-cio/

[BoulderSooner79]

Don't you think that Unions, with forced dues, buy enough Congressmen to dilute the laws over time too?

Yes, and that's part of the balance of power. It's unfortunate, but
whatever mechanism balances the power must include enough money
to offset what the companies can do. I would rather see the campaign
laws changed so neither side can so blatantly influence legislation. But
I don't see that happening because the guys in congress benefit from
to 2 side trying to out bid each other and they make the rules. This is
why the companies are trying so hard to bust the unions. Not just to
get the upper hand short term, but to reduce union dues and thus
legislation long term.

[SCOUT]

Yes, and that's part of the balance of power. It's unfortunate, but
whatever mechanism balances the power must include enough money
to offset what the companies can do. I would rather see the campaign
laws changed so neither side can so blatantly influence legislation. But
I don't see that happening because the guys in congress benefit from
to 2 side trying to out bid each other and they make the rules. This is
why the companies are trying so hard to bust the unions. Not just to
get the upper hand short term, but to reduce union dues and thus
legislation long term.
I don't think unions are part of the balance of power. Your claim was the rich company owners would just buy legislation, but the reality is that unions do that more than anyone.

To your other point, companies are trying to bust the unions so they can be profitable and pay market wages.

Extortion shouldn't be a way of business in 2014.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't think unions are part of the balance of power. Your claim was the rich company owners would just buy legislation, but the reality is that unions do that more than anyone.

To your other point, companies are trying to bust the unions so they can be profitable and pay market wages.

Extortion shouldn't be a way of business in 2014.

Companies want to control the definition of "market wages". Look no further than the recent ruling against the kind of companies I work for (Google,Apple,Facebook,etc). They just lost in court against charges of collusion of trying to keep wages down for high-tech workers. They had secret agreements between companies to not poach workers because it was driving salaries up too high. This was a case of workers having the upper hand because of pure supply and demand market forces and the companies tried to subvert it. These are our high tech, gleaming, innovative companies held up as shining example of free market capitalism.

If you don't think that our 2014 business leaders wouldn't revert to 1914 labor conditions if there was nothing to stop them, you are naive. It would be a slow, incremental process, but it would happen due to competition. If one competitor took a step that way and lowered costs, it would force the competition to follow suite. It wouldn't be from evil designs, just survival instincts.

[SCOUT]

Companies want to control the definition of "market wages". Look no further than the recent ruling against the kind of companies I work for (Google,Apple,Facebook,etc). They just lost in court against charges of collusion of trying to keep wages down for high-tech workers. They had secret agreements between companies to not poach workers because it was driving salaries up too high. This was a case of workers having the upper hand because of pure supply and demand market forces and the companies tried to subvert it. These are our high tech, gleaming, innovative companies held up as shining example of free market capitalism.

If you don't think that our 2014 business leaders wouldn't revert to 1914 labor conditions if there was nothing to stop them, you are naive. It would be a slow, incremental process, but it would happen due to competition. If one competitor took a step that way and lowered costs, it would force the competition to follow suite. It wouldn't be from evil designs, just survival instincts.

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.

[pphilfran]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.
Excessive supply of labor results in low wages....
Companies are on a never ending quest to cut costs...

[SCOUT]

Excessive supply of labor results in low wages....
Companies are on a never ending quest to cut costs...

I agree that an excessive supply of labor suppresses wages, but that is not the case with Unions.

[BoulderSooner79]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

Unions don't ever change. They are always anti-management.

Management isn't always anti-worker.

That is the difference.

I've seen all these forces in action at companies I've worked for. As a programmer,
I'm fortunately the demand has exceeded supply for almost all my career, and
there has never been a push to unionize (and unionizing programmers would
amount to herding cats). I'm compensated well and always have been. But
my companies have tried to lower wages by hiring in India, China, Bulgaria
and other lower wage locales. And they lobby congress to increase the quota
of H1 visas to bring cheaper labor here, so I'm not oblivious to what's going
on. If they could displace me with someone cheaper, they would.

As I've said, I'm not pro union, just pro workers' rights. My leverage
comes from too few US kids wanting to go into technical fields. The
balance of power may come from different places for different
professions.

I'm glad your company pays better and is run better. I hope some
unscrupulous company doesn't come in and undercut you and
hurt your business.

[TAFBSooner]

I disagree with almost everything you typed. For example, I hire people for a living. My company is successful because we pay better, operate better and just have a better environment than any of our competitors. You are right that market forces can force wages down, but the same is true on the upward side. I am literally an example of that.

In the tech industry, salaries were forced down by collusion between the companies, not by market forces.

(If you consider collusion between companies to be a market force, please so state and explain.)

If you are OK with the tech companies joining forces against the workers, why are you against the workers joining forces against management?

[SCOUT]

In the tech industry, salaries were forced down by collusion between the companies, not by market forces.

(If you consider collusion between companies to be a market force, please so state and explain.)

If you are OK with the tech companies joining forces against the workers, why are you against the workers joining forces against management?

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

[BoulderSooner79]

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

Big guy vs. little guy. The workers must gather together in some way to have any clout at all. Big companies already have huge clout by themselves - look at Apples cash and market value. But it is a complex system and the dynamics of the monster company certainly don't scale down to the mom and pop corner store. So many people want a black and white, good vs evil conflict when it comes to something like unions and truth is always grey scale. If either side totally wins, it will be a careful what you wish for situation.

[Sooner8th]

There is a bit more to it than just those companies, but I am willing to even accept the notion for the sake of argument. Oh and I never said that i was OK with collusion, but again for the sake of argument...

Instead of asking the question you did, why wouldn't you reverse it? If workers join forces against management, as they have for decades, why are you opposed to the reverse?

The difference is the company can hire and fire you. If you start to make to much money, a company can simply lay you off and keep younger cheaper workers. I know some unions do work across companies, but manufacturing unions negotiate contracts with each individual company with different wage rates so you don't have an entire industry setting a wage rate.