Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Rick Rolls [Labor]

11415171920101

Posts

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Actually, the latter tactic is illegal, and the NLRB busted Boeing for it.

    You can threaten that the company will close if the workers unionize. You can not do it as a retaliation tactic in negotiations. In other words, before the union is formed it's legal. At least that's my understanding of the law. Here's a quote from George Miller, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor:
    The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers. Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can force workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.

    Emphasis mine. Taken from Wikipedia here.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Yes, greater penetration would greatly lessen my issues with unions. If they were ubiquitous, I would hardly have a problem with them (I still wouldn't like seniority, restrictions on being able to fire people, or work rules, which are my three main issues with unions). I know you may not believe me, but I am really committed to better working conditions for the average worker. As I have said in this and other threads, I would love to see a massive expansion of the FLSA to provide EU style protections to American workers, and I would love to see viable, unbiased third party arbitrators as a means of dispute resolution between employees and employers. I know this is not easy to achieve, and with the current political climate, it is probably impossible, but I absolutely think that American workers deserve more protections and job security. In my labor utopia, unions could even exist as bargaining agents on things like salary, I just want them out of the dispute resolution process, I don't want work rules imposed (we should have more rigorous statutory rules on hours instead) and I don't want seniority to be the way that promotions and raises are determined.

    So you're anti-union because so few workers are organized but would be pro-union if more workers were. And you'd want many of the protections that unions provide to be provided by law. SKM, there's a pro-labor guy hiding in you. Why not stand with workers to increase unionization rates until these things can be achieved. I assure you, unions love to make themselves obsolete by codifying their goals. Minimum wage, overtime pay, and safe working conditions are just some examples.

    Yes there are bad unions. Yes there are corrupt unions. Yes there are bad workplace rules. Most aren't. More importantly, powerful unions are the only way workers will have the political power to make those changes happen.

    enc0re on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Yes, greater penetration would greatly lessen my issues with unions. If they were ubiquitous, I would hardly have a problem with them (I still wouldn't like seniority, restrictions on being able to fire people, or work rules, which are my three main issues with unions). I know you may not believe me, but I am really committed to better working conditions for the average worker. As I have said in this and other threads, I would love to see a massive expansion of the FLSA to provide EU style protections to American workers, and I would love to see viable, unbiased third party arbitrators as a means of dispute resolution between employees and employers. I know this is not easy to achieve, and with the current political climate, it is probably impossible, but I absolutely think that American workers deserve more protections and job security. In my labor utopia, unions could even exist as bargaining agents on things like salary, I just want them out of the dispute resolution process, I don't want work rules imposed (we should have more rigorous statutory rules on hours instead) and I don't want seniority to be the way that promotions and raises are determined.

    So you're anti-union because so few workers are organized but would be pro-union if more workers were. And you'd want many of the protections that unions provide to be provided by law. SKM, there's a pro-labor guy hiding in you. Why not stand with workers to increase unionization rates until these things can be achieved. I assure you, unions love to make themselves obsolete by codifying their goals. Minimum wage, overtime pay, and safe working conditions are just some examples.

    Im not sure the bolded is correct - even if we see increased minimum wage tacked to inflation, overtime pay, and safe work environments (and maternity and paternity leave, and mandatory vacations and...) unions would still have a place because what has been fought for can be lost, and what has been given can be taken away.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Also, I keep hearing the old canard about how due to the union, poor employee's cannot be fired. Is that actually true, or is it a case of management not being willing to go through the hoops the union imposes to keep the hiring/firing practices fair?

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Also, I keep hearing the old canard about how due to the union, poor employee's cannot be fired. Is that actually true, or is it a case of management not being willing to go through the hoops the union imposes to keep the hiring/firing practices fair?

    The second.

    Unions generally make you have to fill out a bunch of paperwork and shit to fire people.

    Of course, in my experience it's the same in most companies if you live anywhere with decent labour laws. (ie - not the US)

  • ArchangleArchangle Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    This is completely tangential to the current conversation, but I've wondered about the possibility of unions as a quality assurance proposition. I mean, that's theoretically the basis of creative unions who usually don't let just anyone join until they have some qualifying factors under their belt - whether it's what it purports to say on the tin is another conversation.

    "Hire union, because our members show up on time, meet deadlines, hit performance targets, and don't steal from your company. You will pay us better than non-union because we can prove that we're worth it, and workers will want to join us for the seal of approval that makes them more valuable in the job market. If you treat one of our members unfairly we will make your life a living hell, and if one of our members is unprofessional we will take them behind the shed and break their kneecaps before you fire them."

    Obviously this applies more to skilled labor than, say, Cotton Pickers United (although even with so-called "unskilled" labor there's still minimum performance targets), but currently the messaging from unions is predominantly "If you treat one of our members unfairly we will make your life a living hell" and it begs the response "Since all we get is downside with no upside, why would we work with you if we could do anything (up to, and including, changing labor laws) to avoid it?"

    Archangle on
    Roman
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    Not to mention that unions are able to provide a few services to it's members that are not directly related to their employment. Our engineering union offers assistance in examining resumés, practice interviews and access to salary statistics, as well as serving as a negotiating partner towards other service providers - you go to a bank or insurance provider, you say "We have this many members. If we recommend your bank to our members, how can you improve the terms?". They maintain a knowledge base of information that their members might find useful - like which permits needed to work abroad in particular countries - encourage networking within your profession by providing meetups. For management that is a member of the union (The divide and conquer of saying that certain labor doesn't need unions? Yeah, we don't do that shit) they arrange leadership seminars, more networking - every 5th member of my union is in a management position. There's even a section here about being a member of the union and running a one man company, with related knowledge bases and advice needed to do it properly. There is a guide on how to be your own employer. And of course, the income insurance that applies to all members should they become unemployed.

    There is a lot more to what unions can do than just negotiate with an employer. They are organizations out to look after the interests of their members. Arguing that we "don't need unions" just because workplace safety or wages are already good is missing out, significantly, on the benefits of organizing.


    And I'm still wondering how improved labor regulations would come about without unions. It's like pining for an omelette, praising egg but saying that all hens should be exterminated because they are vile, filthy creatures. Can't have an omelette without breaking a few eggs; Can't have eggs without keeping a few hens. It's either intellectually dishonest or incredibly unrealistic.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Also, I keep hearing the old canard about how due to the union, poor employee's cannot be fired. Is that actually true, or is it a case of management not being willing to go through the hoops the union imposes to keep the hiring/firing practices fair?

    It's sometimes apparently true, but it's difficult to pin causality strictly on the union.

    For example: The Alberta Teacher's Union is the poster child for conservative rhetoric about how unions can 'force' an employer to retain bad employees. But is it the union that acts as a protective barrier for bad teachers, or is it the nature of the teaching profession & public education system?

    If it's the former, you should expect to see the same problems replicated in other unionized labour forces. But you rarely do.

    Now, obviously worker solidarity & fair employment practices do create much lower turnover, and prevent trivial dismissal. But neither of those things are necessarily bad at all.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Yes, greater penetration would greatly lessen my issues with unions. If they were ubiquitous, I would hardly have a problem with them (I still wouldn't like seniority, restrictions on being able to fire people, or work rules, which are my three main issues with unions). I know you may not believe me, but I am really committed to better working conditions for the average worker. As I have said in this and other threads, I would love to see a massive expansion of the FLSA to provide EU style protections to American workers, and I would love to see viable, unbiased third party arbitrators as a means of dispute resolution between employees and employers. I know this is not easy to achieve, and with the current political climate, it is probably impossible, but I absolutely think that American workers deserve more protections and job security. In my labor utopia, unions could even exist as bargaining agents on things like salary, I just want them out of the dispute resolution process, I don't want work rules imposed (we should have more rigorous statutory rules on hours instead) and I don't want seniority to be the way that promotions and raises are determined.

    So you're anti-union because so few workers are organized but would be pro-union if more workers were. And you'd want many of the protections that unions provide to be provided by law. SKM, there's a pro-labor guy hiding in you. Why not stand with workers to increase unionization rates until these things can be achieved. I assure you, unions love to make themselves obsolete by codifying their goals. Minimum wage, overtime pay, and safe working conditions are just some examples.

    Yes there are bad unions. Yes there are corrupt unions. Yes there are bad workplace rules. Most aren't. More importantly, powerful unions are the only way workers will have the political power to make those changes happen.

    Penetration levels matter to me for three reasons: (1) with low penetration, being a union company is a major competitive disadvantage, (2) the costs of unions are not balanced out with a major societal benefit, since so few employees are covered and (3) low membership is one of the causes of the catastrophic funding levels at the pension plans (this last point can't be pinned on employers, since the unions manage the plans independently).

    As membership goes up, the disadvantages become a cost of doing business, since most companies are dealing with them, and that takes a lot of the sting out. That said, I would still want to see major reforms to employment laws, but I recognize that in a high union membership world where the unions are not constantly trying to justify their continued existence by pointing to the wage and benefits they provide. Here are my substantive concerns with unions in a high penetration world:

    (1) I don't think unions should be directly involved in getting employees reinstated after they are fired. In theory all that the unions are doing is making sure a process is followed, which would be fine, but I have heard about too many people being reinstated after being fired for showing up to work drunk repeatedly, or similiar nonsense. I think the correct way to handle this issue is mandatory seniority based severance (I.e. a week for every year of employment in the industry) if someone is fired without cause, or is forced out. I would define cause as the repeated (documented) failure to follow instructions or policies, the commision of a felony, drunk driving offense, or other crimes involving fraud or moral turpitude, or documented poor performance. If the union wants to grieve a termination, it should be heard by neutral state established review boards, and the whole process should take a month or less.

    (2) Seniority does not seem like a rational way to determine pay or promotions. I think the union should negotiate wage levels, but the company should determine who to promote, and if there isn't enough work, they should decide who gets called. Again, a neutral state run grievance process seems like the way to go if there is a dispute.

    (3) Work rules are complicated. At their best, they ensure work is done in a safe way, instead of by cutting corners at every opportunity. At their worst, you get 5 guys doing a job that could easily be done by 3, or the conductor who is required to sit on the robotic train even though he doesn't even know how it works it (and the operator of the robot train becomes another employee you need). I think the best approach would be more laws on how long you can work without a break, or how many hours you can work, along with the above mentioned grievance process for violations of the rules or of safety standards like OSHA.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    (2) Seniority does not seem like a rational way to determine pay or promotions.

    This is how everyone else does it. Shocking update: most workplaces aren't meritocracies.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    SPKM, what are your feelings on lawyers? Do you think they're something that shouldn't exist in an ideal world?

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Unions are the closes thing to a neutral grievance process you are going to get.

    In non-union jobs you get called into a meeting with 2-3 management types and fired for any reasons even arbitrary ones. With unions, you get a representative that is on your side, forcing the company to fire you with a valid reason.

    A neutral grievance board would have to be government created, i.e. a court. paid for with more taxes i.e. corporate ones. If not its the same arbitration deals private business has going on now. Where the company picks the venue and the arbitrator and no chance of appeal. Nobody trusts those to be fair.

    Even then a employee would have the right to a advocate/lawyer, since work rules are as you said complicated.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    (2) Seniority does not seem like a rational way to determine pay or promotions.

    This is how everyone else does it. Shocking update: most workplaces aren't meritocracies.

    This is not a defense of the practice, and even so, there is a big difference when people can be fired, held in the same job and passed over for promotions vs having rules on who gets called or promoted. The amount of absolutely brilliant people working in big law firms is staggering, and I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money. Don' get me wrong, the work is really interesting and rewarding, but I have to believe there are an number of careers I could have that would benefit society more than my current role as a hyper specialized corporate lawyer.

    Hacksaw wrote: »
    SPKM, what are your feelings on lawyers? Do you think they're something that shouldn't exist in an ideal world?

    In an ideal world we definitely wouldn't need lawyers. My whole profession exists because the rules are too complicated for people to understand and follow. It's inefficient, and the high pay draws people into the field instead of more productive work.
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Unions are the closes thing to a neutral grievance process you are going to get.

    In non-union jobs you get called into a meeting with 2-3 management types and fired for any reasons even arbitrary ones. With unions, you get a representative that is on your side, forcing the company to fire you with a valid reason.

    A neutral grievance board would have to be government created, i.e. a court. paid for with more taxes i.e. corporate ones. If not its the same arbitration deals private business has going on now. Where the company picks the venue and the arbitrator and no chance of appeal. Nobody trusts those to be fair.

    Even then a employee would have the right to a advocate/lawyer, since work rules are as you said complicated.

    I agree there are costs, but I don't see that as a problem, since the costs would be spread among all companies. FWIW, my understanding is that labor arbitrations primarily find in favor of the employee, and most cases don't reach arbitration because the company gives in. Right now we have a system where grievances are resolved between the company, which is interested in controlling the work force and not keeping people it doesn't like, and the union, which is interested in showing value to members and keeping them happy. If we really want to evaluate whether a termination is fair, we need a neutral third party (and like I said before, it needs to happen much faster than under the current system, because it isn't fair for an employee to be in limbo for months or years, unsure if they really have a job).

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I side with workers by default because, as a whole, they have less bargaining rights than the employer.

    Ever work in a job that's demeaning without being a scab and elevated in worth and pay immediately? There's a reason these places have workers. Ever have a supervisor scream off their face at you for no real reason? Ever get told "hah you're not worth health care or a 50 cent raise, here's a 10 cent raise.", yet the store itself has been showing record profits for years?

    Unfortunately not everyone has gigantic balls like me so screaming supervisors and being treated like shit are terrible ways to treat your workforce.

    Having been union and not union I can tell you, even as a teamster, unions being overreaching is a thing of the past. If you think it's like the mob boss days you need to wake the fuck up. Maybe I'll share my story about unions and how they saved me from losing my job.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Unions are the closes thing to a neutral grievance process you are going to get.

    In non-union jobs you get called into a meeting with 2-3 management types and fired for any reasons even arbitrary ones. With unions, you get a representative that is on your side, forcing the company to fire you with a valid reason.

    A neutral grievance board would have to be government created, i.e. a court. paid for with more taxes i.e. corporate ones. If not its the same arbitration deals private business has going on now. Where the company picks the venue and the arbitrator and no chance of appeal. Nobody trusts those to be fair.

    Even then a employee would have the right to a advocate/lawyer, since work rules are as you said complicated.

    Mostly this too. It helps protect worker rights. Your manager promoting his secretary because he's getting blown during lunch? Good luck with that in a union. Your wife get fired because she got pregnant, got raises right before she notified them for "amazing work", and suddenly "oh we filed paperwork wrong, you're fired" or other nonsensical reasons? Good luck with that in a union.

    There is almost literally no reason to not unionize anymore, unless you're a skilled laborer and there's a shortage of supply. Like nurses, but even they unionize. People who don't unionize are dumb.

    This whole walmart thing, what needs to happen is the entire workforce needs to have solidarity and unionize together, not once everything gets bad enough to do it. Sure walmart can close down a single shop in a single area. Can they shut down every shop in every area? Or more than 1/4 of their locations?

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    SPKM, what are your feelings on lawyers? Do you think they're something that shouldn't exist in an ideal world?

    In an ideal world we definitely wouldn't need lawyers.

    We don't live in an ideal world. And we never will. We need lawyers as much as we need unions. Accept that. Move on.

  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    This whole walmart thing, what needs to happen is the entire workforce needs to have solidarity and unionize together, not once everything gets bad enough to do it. Sure walmart can close down a single shop in a single area. Can they shut down every shop in every area? Or more than 1/4 of their locations?

    ...Well, Wal-Mart can't, though one of the unfortunate drawbacks of modern communications & travel is that it's become more or less trivial for, say, Caterpillar to simply say, "Oh, you're all going to unionize and demand fair pay? Well, fuck you. We're closing down all operations in North America and setting-up shop in a country full of more desperate people instead."

    So there is this sort-of uncomfortable complexity in a lot of sectors when it comes to collective bargaining.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    One could impose impossible tariffs on companies that decided to do this?

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    Nothing, but how do you get those people money? More importantly, how do you not tie that into taxes so people stop bitching about it?

    bowen on
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    I mean, I would think people would get into careers that have a great deal to do with massive sums of money because they, at least in part, want to be paid massive sums of money. Shit, I didn't become a stagehand because I thought it was somehow noble and necessary for society; I did it because being an actor and/or writer is a surer ticket to poverty than peeing on my collected savings and then setting them on fire.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited June 2012
    bowen wrote: »
    One could impose impossible tariffs on companies that decided to do this?

    You could, yes, but that has proven to be parts unwieldy and parts destructive in the past.

    I'd rather see the development of inter-governmental cooperation to deal with this issue. There's no real precedent for that sort of thing, but I think it's what we'll eventually need in order to solve the issue of imbalanced & unsustainable outsourcing.


    For example: If we could entice China and India to establish reasonable minimum wages, that would really limit the incentive for companies to outsource manufacturing to those places. If a company then decides to move from China or India to [X] country, we bring [X] country to the negotiations table. Etc.


    We could also play the Libertarian game and just hope that people refuse to buy cheap (EDIT: By 'cheap' I mean 'inexpensive') products from corporations that exploit poor & desperate laborers.

    HAHAHA I'M SO FUNNY

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    I mean, I would think people would get into careers that have a great deal to do with massive sums of money because they, at least in part, want to be paid massive sums of money. Shit, I didn't become a stagehand because I thought it was somehow noble and necessary for society; I did it because being an actor and/or writer is a surer ticket to poverty than peeing on my collected savings and then setting them on fire.

    The issue isn't that people want to make a lot of money (I mean, that's why I took my job). It's that we incentivize the wrong jobs. No way around that but redistribution though, so it's a nonstarter from a policy standpoint on anything but s limited basis (i.e., paying teachers extra to work in bad schools).

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    I mean, I would think people would get into careers that have a great deal to do with massive sums of money because they, at least in part, want to be paid massive sums of money. Shit, I didn't become a stagehand because I thought it was somehow noble and necessary for society; I did it because being an actor and/or writer is a surer ticket to poverty than peeing on my collected savings and then setting them on fire.

    The issue isn't that people want to make a lot of money (I mean, that's why I took my job). It's that we incentivize the wrong jobs. No way around that but redistribution though, so it's a nonstarter from a policy standpoint on anything but s limited basis (i.e., paying teachers extra to work in bad schools).

    So you take issue with a thing that can never really be fixed? Gotcha.

    I'll be over here, talking to a wall. It understands me.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    One could impose impossible tariffs on companies that decided to do this?

    You could, yes, but that has proven to be parts unwieldy and parts destructive in the past.

    I'd rather see the development of inter-governmental cooperation to deal with this issue. There's no real precedent for that sort of thing, but I think it's what we'll eventually need in order to solve the issue of imbalanced & unsustainable outsourcing.


    For example: If we could entice China and India to establish reasonable minimum wages, that would really limit the incentive for companies to outsource manufacturing to those places. If a company then decides to move from China or India to [X] country, we bring [X] country to the negotiations table. Etc.


    We could also play the Libertarian game and just hope that people refuse to buy cheap (EDIT: By 'cheap' I mean 'inexpensive') products from corporations that exploit poor & desperate laborers.

    HAHAHA I'M SO FUNNY

    Actually, in some very limited circumstances, like free trade coffee and diamonds, people do seem to factor labor conditions into purchase decisions.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Actually, in some very limited circumstances, like free trade coffee and diamonds, people do seem to factor labor conditions into purchase decisions.

    Statistics?

    Debeers is still the largest player in the diamond market, by a wide margin, and they're not exactly free trade. I'm unsure of the coffee market.

    In any case, limited voluntary consumer solidarity is not a working solution.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    I mean, I would think people would get into careers that have a great deal to do with massive sums of money because they, at least in part, want to be paid massive sums of money. Shit, I didn't become a stagehand because I thought it was somehow noble and necessary for society; I did it because being an actor and/or writer is a surer ticket to poverty than peeing on my collected savings and then setting them on fire.

    The issue isn't that people want to make a lot of money (I mean, that's why I took my job). It's that we incentivize the wrong jobs. No way around that but redistribution though, so it's a nonstarter from a policy standpoint on anything but s limited basis (i.e., paying teachers extra to work in bad schools).

    A progressive tax policy isn't necessarily 'redistribution' though. A sufficiently progressive tax policy is "jobs".

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    I regard it as a societal failure that so much talent is attracted to careers like finance and law for the money.

    Wait wait wait, hold the phone. It's society's fault these people are attracted to jobs that compensate their workers well? What? What?

    Why in the flying fuck is it a bad thing to want to be paid well to do what you do?

    My brains are leaking out of my ears.

    It isn't a bad thing to want to be paid well. The problem is that we pay people well for doing the wrong jobs. See AMFA's post earlier asking what a 6+ figure executive does that's more important than a teacher.

    I mean, I would think people would get into careers that have a great deal to do with massive sums of money because they, at least in part, want to be paid massive sums of money. Shit, I didn't become a stagehand because I thought it was somehow noble and necessary for society; I did it because being an actor and/or writer is a surer ticket to poverty than peeing on my collected savings and then setting them on fire.

    The issue isn't that people want to make a lot of money (I mean, that's why I took my job). It's that we incentivize the wrong jobs. No way around that but redistribution though, so it's a nonstarter from a policy standpoint on anything but s limited basis (i.e., paying teachers extra to work in bad schools).

    So you take issue with a thing that can never really be fixed? Gotcha.

    I'll be over here, talking to a wall. It understands me.

    This is incredible. I never would have guessed that when the elitist lawyer advocating for and helping executives to get richer and richer says that the system is broken and we should be compensating other professions more highly than the ones we focus on now, that would be met with criticism.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Actually, in some very limited circumstances, like free trade coffee and diamonds, people do seem to factor labor conditions into purchase decisions.

    Statistics?

    Debeers is still the largest player in the diamond market, by a wide margin, and they're not exactly free trade. I'm unsure of the coffee market.

    In any case, limited voluntary consumer solidarity is not a working solution.

    Well, Starbucks is all fair trade now, I believe, so that is a huge win. I agree it likely isn't a workable solution, but it does show that in some circumstances people actually do care. Remember there was a time where only "crazy environmentalists" bought recycled paper, and now it is everywhere.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    This is incredible. I never would have guessed that when the elitist lawyer advocating for and helping executives to get richer and richer says that the system is broken and we should be compensating other professions more highly than the ones we focus on now, that would be met with criticism.

    I'm not criticizing you, I just don't understand you. If you're against the very thing that makes you money, why do it?

    I'm guessing money.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    This is incredible. I never would have guessed that when the elitist lawyer advocating for and helping executives to get richer and richer says that the system is broken and we should be compensating other professions more highly than the ones we focus on now, that would be met with criticism.

    I'm not criticizing you, I just don't understand you. If you're against the very thing that makes you money, why do it?

    I'm guessing money.

    I entered the field as a whole for money. I settled into a niche I find super interesting, and which I think I have a knack for, and I really enjoy the work. But is being a lawyer my dream job? Of course not. I'd rather be a food critic or work at the department of treasury on policy, but for the money, I'd rather do what I do.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I mean, I wasn't too keen on fixing projectors and setting up sound systems in college but I was less keen on starving to death.

    "For the money" is a perfectly acceptable reason to have a job.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2012
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    This is incredible. I never would have guessed that when the elitist lawyer advocating for and helping executives to get richer and richer says that the system is broken and we should be compensating other professions more highly than the ones we focus on now, that would be met with criticism.

    I'm not criticizing you, I just don't understand you. If you're against the very thing that makes you money, why do it?

    I'm guessing money.

    I entered the field as a whole for money. I settled into a niche I find super interesting, and which I think I have a knack for, and I really enjoy the work. But is being a lawyer my dream job? Of course not. I'd rather be a food critic or work at the department of treasury on policy, but for the money, I'd rather do what I do.

    I think this describes the problem of a capitalist system in its entirety.

    Edit: Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to use the money as a justification for why you're in your current position. I mean this in the larger scheme of things. Capitalism monetizes careers that don't often produce social good or aren't necessarily fulfilling, and that's a problem.

    Vanguard on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Unions are the closes thing to a neutral grievance process you are going to get.

    In non-union jobs you get called into a meeting with 2-3 management types and fired for any reasons even arbitrary ones. With unions, you get a representative that is on your side, forcing the company to fire you with a valid reason.

    A neutral grievance board would have to be government created, i.e. a court. paid for with more taxes i.e. corporate ones. If not its the same arbitration deals private business has going on now. Where the company picks the venue and the arbitrator and no chance of appeal. Nobody trusts those to be fair.

    Even then a employee would have the right to a advocate/lawyer, since work rules are as you said complicated.

    I agree there are costs, but I don't see that as a problem, since the costs would be spread among all companies. FWIW, my understanding is that labor arbitrations primarily find in favor of the employee, and most cases don't reach arbitration because the company gives in. Right now we have a system where grievances are resolved between the company, which is interested in controlling the work force and not keeping people it doesn't like, and the union, which is interested in showing value to members and keeping them happy. If we really want to evaluate whether a termination is fair, we need a neutral third party (and like I said before, it needs to happen much faster than under the current system, because it isn't fair for an employee to be in limbo for months or years, unsure if they really have a job).

    Spreading it out among all companies sound fair, but it would have the effect of penalizing good companies and encouraging the tragedy of the commons in regards to use of the system. The last part would be especially open to abuse from the worker side, its not them paying for arbitration.

    Make companies and workers pay for their use of the system. Companies in the form usage fees for a neutral arbitrator and workers in the form of union dues. With Unions/companies retaining the right to withdraw their case if the case is open and shut against them. Note Unions having the right to withdraw. If you can't get your fellow workers to stand by your case.... you don't have a case.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • HacksawHacksaw J Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    I mean, I wasn't too keen on fixing projectors and setting up sound systems in college but I was less keen on starving to death.

    "For the money" is a perfectly acceptable reason to have a job.

    Same here. Wanting to have money so you don't die in alley, starving and unloved, is a perfectly valid motivation for taking a well-paying job.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    This is incredible. I never would have guessed that when the elitist lawyer advocating for and helping executives to get richer and richer says that the system is broken and we should be compensating other professions more highly than the ones we focus on now, that would be met with criticism.

    I'm not criticizing you, I just don't understand you. If you're against the very thing that makes you money, why do it?

    I'm guessing money.

    I entered the field as a whole for money. I settled into a niche I find super interesting, and which I think I have a knack for, and I really enjoy the work. But is being a lawyer my dream job? Of course not. I'd rather be a food critic or work at the department of treasury on policy, but for the money, I'd rather do what I do.

    I think this describes the problem of a capitalist system in its entirety.

    Edit: Of course, it's perfectly acceptable to use the money as a justification for why you're in your current position. I mean this in the larger scheme of things. Capitalism monetizes careers that don't often produce social good or aren't necessarily fulfilling, and that's a problem.

    Indeed.

    And that nicely answers my question from a few pages back vis-a-vis teacher/CEO pay.

    I was hoping someone would say that earlier!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    Thread lacks Pete Seeger


    "...will you be a lousy scab, or will you be a man?"

    eokNV.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    It's funny you mention that ender, I once got into an argument with a libertarian that taxes were necessary evil.

    He went off on this huge tangent about how people and studies take all this shit into consideration and people don't buy the cheapest stuff.

    And then finally conceded that sales tax is okay, but income tax isn't. You know, the regressive tax that taxes fairly equally but fucks poor people more often, that one.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Unions are the closes thing to a neutral grievance process you are going to get.

    In non-union jobs you get called into a meeting with 2-3 management types and fired for any reasons even arbitrary ones. With unions, you get a representative that is on your side, forcing the company to fire you with a valid reason.

    A neutral grievance board would have to be government created, i.e. a court. paid for with more taxes i.e. corporate ones. If not its the same arbitration deals private business has going on now. Where the company picks the venue and the arbitrator and no chance of appeal. Nobody trusts those to be fair.

    Even then a employee would have the right to a advocate/lawyer, since work rules are as you said complicated.

    I agree there are costs, but I don't see that as a problem, since the costs would be spread among all companies. FWIW, my understanding is that labor arbitrations primarily find in favor of the employee, and most cases don't reach arbitration because the company gives in. Right now we have a system where grievances are resolved between the company, which is interested in controlling the work force and not keeping people it doesn't like, and the union, which is interested in showing value to members and keeping them happy. If we really want to evaluate whether a termination is fair, we need a neutral third party (and like I said before, it needs to happen much faster than under the current system, because it isn't fair for an employee to be in limbo for months or years, unsure if they really have a job).

    Spreading it out among all companies sound fair, but it would have the effect of penalizing good companies and encouraging the tragedy of the commons in regards to use of the system. The last part would be especially open to abuse from the worker side, its not them paying for arbitration.

    Make companies and workers pay for their use of the system. Companies in the form usage fees for a neutral arbitrator and workers in the form of union dues. With Unions/companies retaining the right to withdraw their case if the case is open and shut against them. Note Unions having the right to withdraw. If you can't get your fellow workers to stand by your case.... you don't have a case.

    This sounds workable. As an alternative, we could mimic the courts and penalize frivolous claims. But either way, I think that a truly neutral arbitrator is the way to balance the need for workers to be protected and have job security against the need for management to be able to run their company the way they want to. The current system sucks for non-union workers and union employers, and if you're doing the math at home, that means on net the current system is not benefiting most employees.

    qkjb5npq8xrb.jpg
This discussion has been closed.