[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? I’m not trying to argue but from where I am, I’ve worked my ass off to pass certifications in my trade in order to make more money and be presented with more opportunities. Just curious, thanks for any responses.[/quote]
Because Democratic policies suggest you don’t need to work hard to succeed.
Imagine if you could never be fired, while doing the same or even less amounts of work ?
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^I would die of boredom. Unions are frightening.[/quote]
You might just get killed anyway. The SEIU here has threatened LAX airport workers for trying to negotiate their contracts without Union representation. The SEIU bussed in almost 1000 protestors to block the main entrance and exit to the airport, just to show other Union workers what will happen if they try this stunt.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? [/quote]
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it.
Because Americans, in general, have no solidarity. One of the main reasons why this country is going to shit. In other countries, including countries doing far better at the moment than the US, these kinds of jobs do pay living wages.[/quote]
Solidarity has zero to do with how much money you make, zero. Janitors will makes less than an electrician even if everyone sat around and sang kum-by-ya all day.
Then move to another country or pay more for your goods… Those are the two choices. If people want Wal-Mart cashiers to make more than Target cashiers and Sears cashiers then they are going to pay more for the cheap shit they buy at Wal-MArt.
[quote]
You seem fixated on market wage. Which in context is fairly meaningless. [/quote]
This is where I should be done entertaining your posts. This isn’t even based in reality.
I’m going to walk into my boss’s office on Monday and tell him market wages are meaningless and he should pay me more… The market always matters, always. School books aside, in the real world the market runs the show.
Low skilled labor is, and always has, paid shit money.
So… You want to change the market? I thought market wages were meaningless?
A fucking union doesn’t do this, or any of the other things you spoke of. Not even close. Yesterday’s union is not todays, and everyone forgets this.
Again, you are talking about changing the market. A union doesn’t do this, not even close. In fact in today’s union it would be in their best interest to not do this. Because if the market changed, the union would become moot.
You misunderstand. I, in fact, would love to see low income workers make more money, by adding value to the market. Because when you add value everyone benefits. The producer makes more and the consumer gets a better product.
There is a huge difference between forcing people to pay employees more without adding any value to the market (a union in Pitt’s utopian dream) and employees adding value and earning a pay raise.
See, this is where Marx fucked up. This is why the collective fails.
I agree with you. A union won’t change the market, and that is what you are talking about.
Any capitalist would be angry at the idea of artificially inflating wages determined by the market with zero value added.
You assume that people are arguing against poor people, when in reality we are arguing for poor people. These jobs not paying more give incentive to improve yourself so you can earn more. Not just sit back and take a job from a high school/college kid looking to score some weed money, or an older citizen looking to keep busy or make ends meet.
Again, without adding value, the more the wages increase the more the prices increase. Seeing as lower income people shop in these stores anyway…
[quote]
I lived in Australia for ~5 years. The cost of living is significantly higher there than in the US.[/quote]
So… This proves my statement, that you called silly and Pitt called me a moron for, as completely true.
Thank you.
LOL @ “much, much better off”… Fucking Americans. Only in America, where people can be handed more money in a year for nothing, by the government, than billions of other people in the world will see in their life time seen as “poor oppressed people”.
One of the few liberties we have left, is the one that lets you quit your job and get a new one.
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it. [/quote]
I do not live in a dream .
I do not Walmrt in a Machiavellian Light that wants to brake the "MAN’S BABK ?
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it. [/quote]
I do not live in a dream .
I do not Walmrt in a Machiavellian Light that wants to brake the "MAN’S BABK ?
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it. [/quote]
I do not live in a dream .
I do not Walmrt in a Machiavellian Light that wants to brake the "MAN’S BABK ?
Blah Blah blah :)? HA HA
WTF ?
[/quote]
Are you "what the fuck"ing my post our your own?
I can’t tell at this point. What is a BABK? [/quote
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? I’m not trying to argue but from where I am, I’ve worked my ass off to pass certifications in my trade in order to make more money and be presented with more opportunities. Just curious, thanks for any responses.[/quote]
Because Democratic policies suggest you don’t need to work hard to succeed.
Imagine if you could never be fired, while doing the same or even less amounts of work ?
It’s the Union-Democratic way ![/quote]
Luckily not all Unions or members follow that mantra or feel that way.
Perspective. Pittbull and a couple of other folks from Union perspective. Others from an economical or business owner perspective.
WalMart is large enough (and stubborn enough) that if a union were to take hold, Walmart would simply cut the entire workforce to part-time hours and more self-serve registers. WalMart doesn’t need to hire 100% full-time employees and pay benefits-- in fact, they already do this in large part to keep costs down.
They could (would) slash employees to part-time status and hire more people at an even cheaper loaded rate.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? [/quote]
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it. [/quote]
Machiavelli would not have approved of Walmart.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I just dont get why some unskilled worker who has not gained any skills should get a raise? [/quote]
Because in the dream world some people on this board live in that is what you do: just pass out money to people pretending it has zero consequence or effects.
Pitt sees Wal-Mart as some Machiavellian scheme by the man that needs a union to break The Man’s back and pay better wages.
On the other hand, the people getting paid shit money at Wal-Mart could just get a better job or learn a trade and make much better money, but hey, why ask people to do more when we can just force big evil Wal-Mart to pay more money to people that don’t actually earn it. [/quote]
Machiavelli would not have approved of Walmart. [/quote]
He may not have, but the word “Machiavellian” has less to do with who he actually may or may not have been at this point.
WalMart is large enough (and stubborn enough) that if a union were to take hold, Walmart would simply cut the entire workforce to part-time hours and more self-serve registers.
[/quote]
You are right that is where the Union’s resolve would come in .
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Perspective. Pittbull and a couple of other folks from Union perspective. Others from an economical or business owner perspective.
WalMart is large enough (and stubborn enough) that if a union were to take hold, Walmart would simply cut the entire workforce to part-time hours and more self-serve registers. WalMart doesn’t need to hire 100% full-time employees and pay benefits-- in fact, they already do this in large part to keep costs down.
They could (would) slash employees to part-time status and hire more people at an even cheaper loaded rate.
[/quote]
That makes much more sense to me then WalMart paying its employees decent money for doing a child’s work.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So tell us Pittbull, how much should menial labor jobs pay? $15, $20, $30/hr? How would you determine what a “living wage” should be at? What would the result of arbitrarily increasing wages be in your opinion?[/quote]
So you truly believe an employer should base a person’s salary not on their added value to the company but on how many people that person has living at home?
Goodness. I shop at Walmart regularly. I am really getting used to being pissed off at 1am because even though I am ready to check out the 1 or 2 items I bought, there is only ONE cash register open for the 238 people all standing in line to leave.
This pisses me off for two reasons.
One: WTF? When was it ok for kids to be up at at the damn store at 1am? My parents had my ass in bed by 10. Half of the crowd leaves if you put the elementary school fuckers to sleep.
and Two: I demand cheap items (dude, like body wash on sale for 99cents…I bought like 20) for cheap prices AS WELL AS at least 20 new cashiers with bachelor’s degrees in sociology or computer programming. The lady who checked me out was extremely slow and uneducated…I assume…because she works at Walmart.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So tell us Pittbull, how much should menial labor jobs pay? $15, $20, $30/hr? How would you determine what a “living wage” should be at? What would the result of arbitrarily increasing wages be in your opinion?[/quote]
So you truly believe an employer should base a person’s salary not on their added value to the company but on how many people that person has living at home?
[/quote]
The value of an employee is skewed , Walmart get the advantage of paying a substandard wage because the Government will subsidize people that do not make enough money. Also being the largest private employer (of not only low paid workers) gives Walmart a lot of bargaining power when especially setting the bottom of wages for workers . Walmart is notorious for exploiting the market place because of it’s purchasing power. Their reaches extend to sweat shops in China , you know they have the American labor market sewn up tight .
I am not against Walmart , I know if they went out of business soe one would take their place . but hopefully some on that is not so powerful. Wiki claims the Waton holdings to be that of bottom %30 but I have heard else where it is %40
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So tell us Pittbull, how much should menial labor jobs pay? $15, $20, $30/hr? How would you determine what a “living wage” should be at? What would the result of arbitrarily increasing wages be in your opinion?[/quote]
So you truly believe an employer should base a person’s salary not on their added value to the company but on how many people that person has living at home?
[/quote]
The value of an employee is skewed , Walmart get the advantage of paying a substandard wage because the Government will subsidize people that do not make enough money. Also being the largest private employer (of not only low paid workers) gives Walmart a lot of bargaining power when especially setting the bottom of wages for workers . Walmart is notorious for exploiting the market place because of it’s purchasing power. Their reaches extend to sweat shops in China , you know they have the American labor market sewn up tight .
[/quote]
So you agree government is the problem that is causing low wages. One wonders why unions don’t just create companies themselves so their workers can get paid well with union benefits.
As an aside, I find it hilarious that a good friend of mine is a union organizer while being an at-will employee. He’s not even protected by the operating engineers union he represents.
