Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
In difficult times executives used the 'competitive' excuse not to share a company's wealth. In times when companies are making billions and the money goes into executive's pockets and to shareholders the same excuse is used.

Increase employee benefits, give them bonuses, give them stock in the company.

Anyone against this, speak up and explain your brainwashing.

If I ran a company, I'd make the addition of profit sharing a major portion of every employee's base pay and benefits. Everyone from the CEO down to the janitor gets an annual salary as a basic wage and then the company's entire profits are distributed proportionately among everyone. No bonuses and no stock. That's arbitrary and provides too much opportunity for favoritism and outright corruption. When the company makes money and turns a nice profit, then everybody wins big.

If you're against this, then you must be brainwashed. Or something equally sinister. :wink
 

·
Immoderately Caffeinated/ Vintage Moderator
Joined
·
16,362 Posts
It's nothing of the sort. It's describing the reality of free markets and a warning about the hazards of assuming that you can simply pass laws that alter economic markets without negative consequence.




We live in a society that considers it unacceptable for individuals to go without necessities. Everyone is entitled to healthy food and clean water, safe housing, proper health care, and numerous other things. There are still a few holdouts who long for the days of pure capitalism, where everyone fends for themselves, but that's, fortunately, forever in our past.

So, the big question is how do we ensure that poor people have what they need? For some, the answer is to pass a law that mandates business owners to pay their workers an arbitrarily set wage that is significantly higher than what the market will bear.

My objection to this is that, because of the negative consequences I mentioned above, the actual economic help that goes to those workers is offset by economic harm to others. For some reason, advocates of "living wage" mandates aren't interested in refuting the actuality of negative consequences. Instead, they don't seem to even care because, apparently, good intentions are all that's important.

I contend that good intentions are useless without good outcomes. Helping the poor is a given in a compassionate society. Utilizing programs that are most efficient at that task should also be a given. When we examine low wage workers, we see that most of them are not living in poverty. Treating them as if they were all working poor and trying to help them with a simple law that just forces their employers to put more money in the paychecks of every low wage worker is the wrong approach. A far better solution is to identify the working poor and have the state provide direct assistance that is funded by a means tested tax.

I'm surprised that this state sponsored, tax funded idea isn't universally accepted by liberals. Income taxes are progressive. They take a higher percentage from the rich, who can afford it, and they are also needs tested, which means that we aren't wasting money giving welfare benefits to people who are choosing to work for a low wage because they like the job, but have another, independent source of income.

To see what I mean, the company I work for is a perfect example. We are a small manufacturing business with fewer than ten employees. Five of them are part time and work for just about $10/hr. The "living wage" movement suggests that $15/hr is an appropriate wage. There are two objections to this idea.

1) All of our competitors are based in China where their labor makes much less than $10 per hour. We're already at a serious competitive disadvantage and our company has been struggling from month to month for years. But we hang in there because the owner lives a very frugal, middle class existence and is the furthest thing from the greedy, money grubber, living in wealth, while his workers starve, that is usually assumed to be the case by the "living wage" activists. If the minimum wage went to $15/hr, we would be out of business within a few months because we simply don't have any room to increase labor costs without raising the price of our products. Doing so would price us right out of the market and bankruptcy would become inevitable and every employee would be out of a job. These are negative consequences that can't be ignored and justified by claiming "good intentions".

2) All five of our part time workers have independent sources of income and are comfortably middle class. They simply don't need the money and they work there because the job is extremely easy with a pleasant work environment. They are only working there because they consider their wages to be disposable income. Three of them are gamblers and use this job as an excuse to go to the casino every weekend and blow their paychecks there. The other two use this job as a means to upgrade their lifestyle. The extra income means they can drive a nicer car and eat at better restaurants and take vacations more often.


We can be compassionate and help poor people get what they need. We don't need to be stupid and try to solve problems that don't even exist by passing brute force laws that ignore economic reality.
Thanks for clearing that up. You're a fan of unfettered free market capitalism but on the other hand advocate state handouts for people who don't get paid enough to eat. Your 'good intentions' show why you are a nation of working poor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
You're a fan of unfettered free market capitalism but on the other hand advocate state handouts for people who don't get paid enough to eat.
This is what you got out of everything I wrote???

First of all, I advocate for "free markets", where applicable. You added the modifiers "unfettered" and "capitalism", which shows that you're being intellectually lazy.

Free markets are, without question, the best way to keep costs down and maximize choice and quality. But free markets aren't fair. Poor people tend to be left out, which means that necessities, like food, housing, education, health care, etc.. should be subsidized by the state.

Call it socialism or the nanny state or just plain compassion. It doesn't matter. Modern society cannot accept (or afford) having a portion of the population living in squalor.

The only question is how do we go about raising their standard of living. All I'm trying to do is offer an opinion about how to best go about it. It doesn't make sense to create a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul, especially when the end result is higher inflation and more unemployment.

When the working poor don't have enough money for food, then that's what food stamps are for. If there isn't enough money to fund the program, then we need to make that money available. It's really as simpke as that. Why make shit more difficult than it needs to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
At least it's an improvement over your previous laughable proposition.
This post proves beyond doubt that you're just a stupid troll. There's nothing in this thread that I posted that you could possibly be referring to that's any different from what I wrote above.

Go fuck yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
Hey now... don't hate me because you post crap that nobody but you believes.


I don't hate you. I just think you're a douchebag troll.

And I know you are a troll because you couldn't resist using a post of mine (that you apparently agree with) as an opportunity to personally bash me for supposedly shifting my views from a "previous laughable proposition".

Which you just made up out of thin air.

I've been absolutely consistent in my comments and nothing has changed. But your troll brain won't allow you to just ignore a post of someone you don't like. So you make shit up and spread it around assuming that no one will call you on your bull shit.

You are the very definition of a troll. So far, 50,000+ posts on BWOT with ZERO originality, substance, or usefulness in any of them.

So, fuck off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,562 Posts
I don't hate you. I just think you're a douchebag troll. ............


..............You are the very definition of a troll. So far, 50,000+ posts on BWOT with ZERO originality, substance, or usefulness in any of them.
As a Canadian, I have to politely disagree with this statement....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
And sometimes... sometimes... workers win.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Saturday rejected key elements of President Donald Trump’s May executive orders that would make it easier to fire federal employees and reduce their ability to bargain collectively.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said in a court order that Trump’s orders, which also would reduce the amount of time low-performing employees had to improve their performance before being fired, “undermine federal employees’ right to bargain collectively.”

Trump signed three executive orders in May that administration officials said would give government agencies greater ability to remove employees with “poor” performance, obtain “better deals” in union contracts and require federal employees with union responsibilities to spend less time on union work.

The directives drew immediate criticism from the American Federation of Government Employees, which said the moves would hurt veterans, law enforcement officers and others.

Jackson ruled that while the president has the authority to issue executive orders relating to federal labor relations, the orders cannot “eviscerate the right to bargain collectively” as envisioned in a long-standing federal statute.

“The President must be deemed to have exceeded his authority in issuing (the orders),” Jackson ruled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​


Walt Disney World might now be a place where the workers' dreams really do come true. After months of negotiations, the theme park and resort struck a deal with six unions to start paying employees $15 per hour by 2021, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

The deal still awaits union members' approval, but it would slowly increase the hourly minimum wage for Disney World staff from $10 to $15 by October 2021. Nationwide advocates of a $15 hourly wage often refer to that pay as a "living wage."

UNITE HERE Central Florida, a union that represents staff with Walt Disney World Food & Beverage and Housekeeping, called the raise "historic" in a Facebook post published Friday. In addition, workers will receive a previously scheduled $1,000 bonus that had been put on hold during negotiations.

The deal will affect 38,000 employees that belong to six different unions. Though Disney World originally wanted concessions on union rights, the agreement doesn't include those demands.

"These Union raises will be life-changing for the women and men who welcome millions of tourists to Walt Disney World," Matt Hollis, president of the Service Trades Council Union, said in a statement. "Now money tourists spend here in Central Florida will stay here, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into local small businesses."

The Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that full-time, year-round workers who receive $15 an hour will earn $3,500 more a year. It also argues that a single, childless adult will need to earn $15 an hour by 2024 in order to "achieve a modest but adequate standard of living."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
How is it that the left always assumes that what's good for unions is good for workers and what isn't good for unions us bad for workers?

A more specific question is how is it better for workers when you mandate every employee must have collective bargaining when that means every employee is forced to give up individual bargaining?

What happened to the liberal idea of freedom of choice? They should be all about letting workers choose to be in a union or not and to choose collective bargaining or individual bargaining.

To me, unions seem more like organized religion than organized labor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
Individual bargaining = take it or leave it.

Exactly the opposite. Industry is rich with examples of companies that treat their workers as individuals who are recompensed according to their work ethic and merit. That can't happen with a union where workers are recompensed according to rank and time on job only.

Furthermore, when an entire industry is monopolized by a single union (like autoworkers), it really is a "take it or leave it" situation. If you want to build cars in America, then you have no choice but to join the UAW and take what their representative has negotiated on behalf of everybody or else fuck off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,562 Posts
... or individual bargaining.
.
That really got me laughing.....

Unfortunately, many companies..(and their middle management..) and frontline bosses work with an iron fist..and you'd be gone in an instant without some type of union rep to give your "bargaining" some kind of clout..

Too often bargaining is confrontational as the rule of thumb...and an individual would be crushed in any negotiations. The negative part is that some marginal employees get protected along with everyone else..
 

·
Immoderately Caffeinated/ Vintage Moderator
Joined
·
16,362 Posts
What happened to the liberal idea of freedom of choice? They should be all about letting workers choose to be in a union or not and to choose collective bargaining or individual bargaining.

To me, unions seem more like organized religion than organized labor.

It's not a liberal idea of 'freedom of choice' at all, but just more code words from the far right with their pathological hatred of organized labour to surreptitiously advocate for control. They tried it here. It was called 'Workchoices' and it brought down the government because the ultra-conservatives at the time were determined to follow the chronically unprincipled U.S. style system of industrial relations, blind to the fact the Australian electorate were more sophisticated than the Yanks. They saw the conservative's clever little plan for the fraud it was, watching on as some workforces became dysfunctional and combative because a handful of workers had the wherewithal or means to negotiate a better deal than the majority of people doing the same job for less money because they had not the skill to bargain for themselves or a union to advocate on their behalf. Even many companies saw the folly of Workchoices and remained within a workable framework of basic awards, enterprise bargaining and safety nets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
Exactly the opposite. Industry is rich with examples of companies that treat their workers as individuals who are recompensed according to their work ethic and merit.

I'm sure there are companies like that and in such cases unions are not needed, which reinforces the point of their importance to the other 90% of workers.

I'd like to see you as a line worker negotiate a better deal with Ford, Walmart, or McDonalds than collectively bargaining.

I'll wait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
None of you seem to understand this concept called choice. Im just fine with working for a company where my co-workers are all union members and get to exercise their collective bargaining rights.

But don't force that shit on me if I don't want it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61,610 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
But don't force that shit on me if I don't want it.

Relax, you always have a choice to work somewhere else if free riding on the benefits won by the union members bothers you so much.

Move. Leave the country. Choices!
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
About this Discussion
50 Replies
9 Participants
GreenT
Mercedes-Benz Forum
BenzWorld.org forum is one of the largest Mercedes-Benz owner websites offering the most comprehensive collection of Mercedes-Benz information anywhere in the world. The site includes MB Forums, News, Galleries, Publications, Classifieds, Events and much more!
Full Forum Listing
Top