Minimum Wage Increase: Support or Oppose ?

[Tornicade]

hmm my posting got borked.. oh dang...

Inflation has bee growing rapidly regardless of how long the gap between increasing minimum wage.
it doesnt matter whether you have sympathy for "poor" people. minimum wage increases have been shown not impact employment rates.

Higher wages for entry level non skilled labor increases available income and reduces the need to subsidize incomes meaning less taxpayer money.

also these business that need to pay their employees less than what someone can live on are costing you money and if they cant afford the help they shouldnt be in business.

Also skilled labor and mddle management are making less on the dollar than what they should.

just a simple thing as increases to min wage to 90% of the poverty level for 4 and adjusting it yearly for inflation impacts those outside of the 6 percent of jobs impacted.
allowing workers to demand higher wages and be more likely to get them.

as someone mentioned before Uniona buatin has to end. there has to be some compromise to allow them to do what they are supposed to.

A company with 50 or more employees at a psoition really dont care if one guy up and walks.. .20 to 30 of them can make a persuasive argument.

 

[Ohdang]

I can get behind $10 an hour but I'm arguing against $15 an hour because that's what the poll in the thread stated.

Give everyone $15 an hour and everyone with a low paying job suddenly has more money in their pockets but everything will start costing more to make and prices will increase and it will make money worth less. Poor people are still poor, and people like me making in the > $20 but < $30 range go from middle class to the upper part of the lower class.

No thanks.

 

[The Voice]

Minimum wage is the minimum expectation to be paid. I'm not sure why we keep raising this, it's called MINIMUM wage for a reason. All you have to do is graduate high school to surpass minimum wage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FiveThous]

and that will impact the cost of living and increase the minimum wage. meaning companies would eneed to adapt to a more labor friendly division of revenue

And how does that affect small businesses that are already barely scraping by?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

minimum wage increases have been shown not impact employment rates.

Yeah, I typically call b.s. on that one. There certainly is an argument regarding the magnitude of any such impact, but "no impact" is something that can be disproven by showing that even one job was lost.

The problem is that there are so many variables in the economy, as well as the impossibility of getting timely, accurate, and sufficiently detailed data, that you cannot narrow down exact losses from a single cause such as an increase in the minimum wage. So, you get the "no proof that increases in the minimum wage cost jobs" argument. Likewise, even if a business doesn't actually cut employees or otherwise account for the forced wage increase by other means, the increases in costs will inevitably be accounted for somehow, either via less expansion, orienting production more towards being capital intensive versus labor intensive, etc.. Those things don't always show up quickly, but that doesn't make the impact any less real.

as someone mentioned before Union busting has to end. there has to be some compromise to allow them to do what they are supposed to.

For the most part "union busting" is a crock. It's a label attached by unions whenever employees reject unionization. Further, the current NLRB and DOL are both very strongly disposed to favoring unions when it comes to alleged unfair labor practices by companies. The truth is that new workplaces are unionized all the time, and (far more rarely), employees in a workplace that previously had a union voted to de-certify.

The biggest reason private sector unionization has dropped isn't "union busting", but rather that many private industries that traditionally have had very high rates of unionization have seen massive job losses. The U.S. Steel plant in Gary was unionized back in 1960, and it's unionized now. The difference is that it only employees 6-8,000 workers now versus 40,000+ then. Or just check out Michigan. The Big 3 are still fully unionized, so there hasn't been any "union-busting". But compare their membership to 50 years ago, and you'll see the problem.

A company with 50 or more employees at a position really don't care if one guy up and walks.. QUOTE]

Depends on the guy. Companies generally do not like to lose good workers, and if they see too many of them leaving, they'll generally look to increase compensation or otherwise improve terms and conditions of employment.

Unionization gets its power by artificially limiting the supply of labor via collective bargaining. The problem is that while they can sometimes do that effectively domestically, they can't influence the labor market outside the U.S. at all.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And how does that affect small businesses that are already barely scraping by?

Didn't you hear? Any business that claims it is just scraping by is just not telling the truth. Shit, check out fast food profits. Those companies generally pay at or near minimum wage, and yet, you rarely see them making economic profits over any extended period.

 

[Tornicade]

Union membership has declined from 30% to 10% during a time where more people expressed interest in a union. The numbers dont add up.

From a major company in the 1990's

UNIONS CANNOT:
• Guarantee higher wages
• Guarantee better benefits
• Guarantee employment
• Guarantee hours worked
• Prevent terminations
• Set job standards

UNIONS CAN:
• Collect dues, fees, fines and assessments
• Negotiate
• Strike


But most importantly, a salt has access to our associates! By being inside the facility, a salt can
...
• easily identify those associates vulnerable to union organizing tactics, and
• easily identify associates he/she wants to recruit as "internal organizers" to help obtain
signatures from co-workers in an attempt to organize the facility.

HOW “SALTS” CREATE
PROBLEMS for

Once inside the facility, a salt's primary objective is to convince associates of the "benefits" of unionization and ultimately obtain their signatures on union authorization cards.

Salts can be harmful to , not only because of their organizing activities, but also because they typically feel they are "above" company policies. It would not be uncommon for salts to engage in destructive behavior to provoke management into a coaching and/or termination so they can file an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against the facility.


HO CAN
COMBAT "SALTS"
1. Pre-screen as many applicants as possible to ensure you are hiring the most qualified person for any opening you have available.

* The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an
applicant because of his/her union affiliation. However, the law does not prevent us from
selecting the most positive, dedicated, enthusiastic applicant available. We are under no
obligation to hire an applicant who is defiant or negative. Keep looking until you find the best
applicant to join our family.

3. An application says ... "List entire employment history, starting with present
employer. For any unemployed or self-employed periods, show dates and locations. (Attach
additional sheets when necessary)."

* * * There are only three spaces on the application to list existing or former employers. Ask
applicants if they have completed their entire employment history. If they have not, ask them
to attach additional sheets.

* * * Ensure applications show entire work history with no gaps in employment. If you notice
gaps, question them. Then ask applicants to fill in those gaps.

4. Check references thoroughly. This is a must!

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
ABOUT “SALTS”
Q - Can we ask job applicants about their union affiliation?
A - No. It is illegal to ask applicants their position on unions or whether they have ever been in
a union.

Q - What should I do if an applicant volunteers information he/she is a union member?
A - Explain to the applicant his/her union affiliation makes no difference in our hiring procedures. Then just continue to follow your usual hiring practices.

Q - Must we hire a pro-union or paid union organizer?
A - No. The law simply says you cannot discriminate against an applicant because of his/her
union affiliation. Hire the best candidate for the position.
Q -Can we disqualify an applicant who falsifies his/her application?
A -Yes. Regardless of union affiliation, falsifying an application at Wal-Mart will result in
termination or being disqualified from obtaining employment with Wal-Mart.


Q -Can we terminate a salt who works in our facility?
A - Salts, like all other associates, must meet our expectations and are subject to performance
coachings, up to and including termination. We CANNOT terminate an associate because we
believe or have confirmed they are a salt.

Q -If we hire an applicant who is unproductive and also happens to be a salt, can we terminate
him/her?
A -Yes, as Iong as the reason for termination is based on job performance and not his/her
union affiliation. Be sure you have documentation to support the termination.

If you suspect there is a "salt" in your facility, contact
the Union Hotline at 501-273-8300.


EARLY WARNING SIGNS - CATEGORY 1
• An increase in associate phone calls in and out of the facility.
• Increased curiosity in benefits and policies.
• Associates receiving unusual attention from other associates.
• Abnormal amount of absenteeism.
• Excessive turnover.
• Slowdown in work productivity.
• An increase in errors in associates' work.
• Exit interviews indicating associates are in conflict.
• Surge of complaints by associates against management.
• Associates confront management.
• Associates "bait" management into discipline or termination.
• Abuse of restroom visits.
• Argumentative questions are asked in departmental/facility meetings.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS - CATEGORY 2

• Confidential information being misplaced or removed from files
• "Strangers" spending an unusual amount of time in the associates' parking areas at the
beginning or end of shifts
• Associates spending an abnormal amount of time in the parking lot before and after work
• Frequent meetings at associates' homes
• Associates coming back to the facility to talk to associates on other shifts
• Open talk about unions among associates
• Reports from associates of the union visiting their homes, calling them, or sending them
literature in the mail
• Union literature found around the facility
• Associates using union terms such as arbitration, grievance, and seniority
• Interest in obtaining names and addresses from schedules or associate listings
• Associates leaving work areas on a frequent basis to talk to other associates
• Associates who are never seen together start talking or associating with each other and begin
forming strange alliances


you can get more information http://reclaimdemocracy.org

Workers in the private sector had used the strike as a tool of leverage in labor-management conflicts between World War II and 1981, repeatedly withholding their work to win fairer treatment from recalcitrant employers. But after Patco, that weapon was largely lost. Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.

By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952. Lacking the leverage that strikes once provided, unions have been unable to pressure employers to increase wages as productivity rises. Inequality has ballooned to a level not seen since Reagan’s boyhood in the 1920s.

Although he opposed government strikes, Reagan supported government workers’ efforts to unionize and bargain collectively. As governor, he extended such rights in California. As president he was prepared to do the same. Not only did he court and win Patco’s endorsement during his 1980 campaign, he directed his negotiators to go beyond his legal authority to offer controllers a pay raise before their strike — the first time a president had ever offered so much to a federal employees’ union.

But the impact of the Patco strike on Reagan’s fellow Republicans has long since overshadowed his own professed beliefs regarding public sector unions. Over time the rightward-shifting Republican Party has come to view Reagan’s mass firings not as a focused effort to stop one union from breaking the law — as Reagan portrayed it — but rather as a blow against public sector unionism itself.

In the spring, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin invoked Reagan’s handling of Patco as he prepared to “change history” by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights in a party-line vote. “I’m not negotiating,” Mr. Walker said. By then the world had seemingly forgotten that unlike Mr. Walker, Reagan had not challenged public employees’ right to bargain — only their right to strike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reagan-vs-patco-the-strike-that-busted-unions.html?_r=0


public unions do however account for 30 of the public work force yet court decisions and management prerogative are sill used to limit union effectiveness.

when those jobs left new ones took their place and corporate america was ready.

there still a middle class out there with jobs. fending for themselves and getting bilked. Trade, labor or some type of representation for workers is needed along with with government and judicial support.

its no coincidence the inequality of wealth distribution in america coincides with the decline of unions.

 

[Tornicade]

And how does that affect small businesses that are already barely scraping by?

im with Roosevelt if a company can only remain sustainable by paying their workers less than what it takes to live.. they should cease to exist

Business models shouldnt include the expectation of the us taxpayer to feed their employees

 

[David.]

how do you have time for all of this tornicade.

 

[FiveThous]

im with Roosevelt if a company can only remain sustainable by paying their workers less than what it takes to live.. they should cease to exist

Business models shouldnt include the expectation of the us taxpayer to feed their employees

You are going to see unemployment skyrocket if this happens.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage law anyways. If two people can come to terms on money, services or goods being exchanged or whatever else they see fit to get the job done then let those two hash it out. We don't need big brother to interfere with labor.

 

[Tornicade]

You are going to see unemployment skyrocket if this happens.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage law anyways. If two people can come to terms on money, services or goods being exchanged or whatever else they see fit to get the job done then let those two hash it out. We don't need big brother to interfere with labor.

You ever need a job quickly and look for a new job while working 20 ours overtime a week to make ends meat?

Minimum wage increases have proven not to impact unemployment.

what would actually happen is if there was a need a new business would come in place viewing labor as capital and not expense. these business will succeed to. not advocating a reasonable minimum wage tied with inflation is only hurting the middle class . not helping it.

typically if your dictatingwho you work for with salary requirements your in a different situations than the 6% of the work force who are nothing more than indentured servants subsidized by you.

 

[FiveThous]

You ever need a job quickly and look for a new job while working 20 ours overtime a week to make ends meat?

Minimum wage increases have proven not to impact unemployment.

what would actually happen is if there was a need a new business would come in place viewing labor as capital and not expense. these business will succeed to. not advocating a reasonable minimum wage tied with inflation is only hurting the middle class . not helping it.

typically if your dictatingwho you work for with salary requirements your in a different situations than the 6% of the work force who are nothing more than indentured servants subsidized by you.

Torn screw $15/hr, you talked me into it, let's raise the min wage to $20/hr so everyone can make an honest living.

Nevermind the fact that the people who make $22/hr wont' see a raise.
Nevermind the fact that food and gas prices will become expensive as hell and we won't be able to buy bread for less than $5/loaf or pay $8/gal
Nevermind the fact that my rent will jump up from 950/mo for a 3br to 1600/mo for that same apartment.

I'm all for just speeding up this inevitable inflation bust, let's throw some gas on the fire eh? Why stop at minimum wage? If we want people to live better and have less of a financial burden, lets forgive all federal student loans. I'm sure people could do a lot with that extra money every month.

I'm onboard, let's do this!

 

[David.]

You are going to see unemployment skyrocket if this happens.

There shouldn't be a minimum wage law anyways. If two people can come to terms on money, services or goods being exchanged or whatever else they see fit to get the job done then let those two hash it out. We don't need big brother to interfere with labor.

people are in no way smart enough to recognize fair market value or figuring out how much they actually need to make or able enough to do this in general.

 

[Tornicade]

Torn screw $15/hr, you talked me into it, let's raise the min wage to $20/hr so everyone can make an honest living.

Nevermind the fact that the people who make $22/hr wont' see a raise.
Nevermind the fact that food and gas prices will become expensive as hell and we won't be able to buy bread for less than $5/loaf or pay $8/gal
Nevermind the fact that my rent will jump up from 950/mo for a 3br to 1600/mo for that same apartment.

I'm all for just speeding up this inevitable inflation bust, let's throw some gas on the fire eh? Why stop at minimum wage? If we want people to live better and have less of a financial burden, lets forgive all federal student loans. I'm sure people could do a lot with that extra money every month.

I'm onboard, let's do this!

if 30 dollars an hours was 90% of the poverty rate for a family of 4 then thats what it should be.

your too busy arguing the headline to pay attention to the story.

discussions evolve.. your audience is well aware of exactly what im advocating so your mocking exaggerations most likely arent having the effect you desire.

as far as the retail employee organizations campaigning for 15. its an effective one for bringing attention to the case and in anegotiation you always start out asking for more than your expecting to get.

the legislature federal and state ar looking at the 10 to 11 range which wont cause the apocolypse your ranting about.


and if farmers and truck drivers are relying on mnium wage to sell their product then thats where the problem needs to be addressed not on a mandated inflation tied minimum wage.

labor is an asset not a liability. you shouldnt rely on what corporate America teaches you. this is exactly why the top 3 ercent earn as much as 85% of the working population.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Union membership has declined from 30% to 10% during a time where more people expressed interest in a union. The numbers dont add up

Sure they do. You need a majority to bring in a union, so having "more people" express an interest still doesn't mean you're going to win a single election, although of course unions do win about half of the elections. And, as I said before, the industries that historically had the highest level of union support, with the strongest, most powerful unions, also just happen to be the industries that have gone in the toilet.. Some might say that there's even a relationship between powerful unions and industries dying, and that unions killing off the higher-paying manufacturing jobs is one reason for increasing gaps in wealth....

From a major company in the 1990's

UNIONS CANNOT:
• Guarantee higher wages
• Guarantee better benefits
• Guarantee employment
• Guarantee hours worked
• Prevent terminations
• Set job standards

UNIONS CAN:
• Collect dues, fees, fines and assessments
• Negotiate
• Strike

But....that's all true though, isn't it? So "union busting" is telling employees the truth about unions?

All the stuff you posted about union salts is likewise not only perfectly legal, but unobjectional morally as well. The language you bolded all shows companies directing hiring managers not to ask about union affiliation, to hire the most qualified applicants (horrors!), and to make sure applicants fill out their employment histories fully and completely. Even if such policies have the effect of excluding salts (who typically have shitty employment histories), what the hell is wrong with hiring the most qualified people?

I guess it's somewhat amusing that unions object to companies directing hiring managers to hire the most qualified applicants, though.