The future of Unions

[carlfense]

Show me figures that show the middle/working class is declining, show me where wages have stagnated even after being artificially increased by the government.

You serious, Clark?

 

I am serious, I like seeing facts when availible (like your graphs). Kind of like the whole I know someone famous deal, or someone who knows something important from someone in a high position. Even your graph shows an increase in wages in the last 30 years. And what is the change of "share of income" ? I dont feel like figuring it out and its your graph so I was hoping you could shed some light on it.

Here's a good intro from the NYT. (with more graphs if you're into that sort of thing.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

 

Share of income references the total amount paid in wages and then breaks it down by income level. The change is from 1979 to present.

[Ziggy]

no no what is "share of Income"?

[carlfense]

no no what is "share of Income"?

 

 

Share of income references the total amount paid in wages and then breaks it down by income level. The change is from 1979 to present.

[Husker_x]

I think Sargon needs a debate coach.

[JJ Husker]

 

This whole post is so misguided, I don't know where to begin. Not sure where your real world experience comes from but it is apparent it is not this world. Companies pay wages based on the economy and available labor pool. When they don't pay enough, they will lose their workers to competitors or other industries. If they can't pay the going wage, their product or services will suffer and they will eventually be no more. A union forcing them to pay higher wages or provide more benefits is only a short term solution for the workers. When that evil, greedy business owner closes the doors, how much good do you think that does the working class?

I don't know if you're seeing the big picture. Middle class wages are declining while the richest are grabbing an ever larger share of allocated wages.

 

The trend is to pay CEOs and upper management more while paying other workers less. Now, theoretically, a union could lobby for increased wages for the workers and the company could offset that by paying their CEO less extravagantly.

 

 

This has nothing to do with evil. It does have quite a bit to do with greed. Rising income disparity is a fact. You don't have to like it . . . but it's a fact. Also note that that rising income disparity shares a strong correlation with the decline of unions. Draw whatever conclusions that you would like from that.

 

I don't think I'm missing the big picture I just don't attribute the increasing income disparity (which I acknowledge) to the decline of unions. I believe it has a whole bunch more to do with the economy in general than it does with unions or even greed for that matter. Being a business owner, I kind of understand how all this works. A couple basic deals people need to understand is; A-Business owners want to make as much money as possible. Their money and equity is at risk. In a good year, good income can be made. In a bad year (like the last few) money can be lost. I'm not talking about collecting a low or unlivable wage. I'm talking actually taking tens of thousands of dollars out of the bank to put into your company. B- If a company does not provide competitive wages or benefits to their employees, the owners will soon not be making money because their good workers are disgruntled, gone to another company, or they are cutting corners and losing customers. It has been my experience that a company needs to pay the workforce what they need to pay them. No more because that will cut into the owners income or cause them to increase sales prices which is rarely possible just becasue you want to, And no less because it will affect their ability to provide their good or service. Our customers determine how much we can afford to pay people. It has very little to do with what we want to pay them. People can refer to me and other business owners as greedy but, until it is their money, income, and livleyhood on the line, I view it as no more than somebody wanting something for nothing or simply complaining that somebody else is better off. If people think we are so greedy then maybe they should start a competing business, put us out of business since apparently we have so much extra cash we are hording, and start showing us all how it is done. IMO, unions typically ignore what the company can afford and only look at what can be gotten to line their pockets and those of their democratic enablers and then possibly any extra to give a meager bump to their members.

 

I realize things get a little more out of whack when you're dealing with very large corporations and the owners are stockholders rather than actual hands-on owners. But, I think most of the same theory applies. Of course there will be cyclical conditions where the CEO's are making tooo much and the workers not enough. But, I firmly believe that economic reality will settle upon those that are operating outside the margins of sound business practices. The problem is that it looks like our government will bail them out when fate comes calling.

[carlfense]

I don't think I'm missing the big picture I just don't attribute the increasing income disparity (which I acknowledge) to the decline of unions. I believe it has a whole bunch more to do with the economy in general than it does with unions or even greed for that matter. Being a business owner, I kind of understand how all this works. A couple basic deals people need to understand is; A-Business owners want to make as much money as possible. Their money and equity is at risk. In a good year, good income can be made. In a bad year (like the last few) money can be lost. I'm not talking about collecting a low or unlivable wage. I'm talking actually taking tens of thousands of dollars out of the bank to put into your company. B- If a company does not provide competitive wages or benefits to their employees, the owners will soon not be making money because their good workers are disgruntled, gone to another company, or they are cutting corners and losing customers. It has been my experience that a company needs to pay the workforce what they need to pay them. No more because that will cut into the owners income or cause them to increase sales prices which is rarely possible just becasue you want to, And no less because it will affect their ability to provide their good or service. Our customers determine how much we can afford to pay people. It has very little to do with what we want to pay them. People can refer to me and other business owners as greedy but, until it is their money, income, and livleyhood on the line, I view it as no more than somebody wanting something for nothing or simply complaining that somebody else is better off. If people think we are so greedy then maybe they should start a competing business, put us out of business since apparently we have so much extra cash we are hording, and start showing us all how it is done. IMO, unions typically ignore what the company can afford and only look at what can be gotten to line their pockets and those of their democratic enablers and then possibly any extra to give a meager bump to their members.

 

I realize things get a little more out of whack when you're dealing with very large corporations and the owners are stockholders rather than actual hands-on owners. But, I think most of the same theory applies. Of course there will be cyclical conditions where the CEO's are making tooo much and the workers not enough. But, I firmly believe that economic reality will settle upon those that are operating outside the margins of sound business practices. The problem is that it looks like our government will bail them out when fate comes calling.

I'm assuming here (and I know what happens when I assume) but I doubt that you employ hundreds or thousands of workers and have multiple CEO/VP/etc. upper management positions. If so, our business ownership experiences are probably fairly similar. Different fields, I'm sure, but roughly similar in scope.

 

Your (and my) type of business is not the type that I was referring to. I was talking about the very large corporate businesses where the CEOs have multi-million dollar golden parachutes while any employee below the VP level either sees their wages stagnating or layoffs. I think my main problem with these sorts of business is the fundamental lack of fairness. The upper management positions get millions in pay and bonuses regardless of their performance while the average joe is just cut loose. That sort of attitude is more suited to an aristocratic society than what I believe the US to be.

 

We're increasingly becoming a society of haves and have nots. In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

 

I I think my main problem with these sorts of business is the fundamental lack of fairness. .

 

We're increasingly becoming a society of haves and have nots. In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

 

How do we define "fair" when it comes to pay, do you feel the same about athletes and actors? This brings up other questions, should we have a maximum wage in the US (I've heard this floated before), should people like Bill Gates not be allowed the spoils of his company, because one person having that much wealth is unfair?

 

I dont know how much we are have and have nots, I guess it depends on how you define it, not many of us will ever be able to afford a Rolls Royce, but almost all of us will own a car, a TV, cell phone, computer etc, etc... Not to say we dont have poor people in this country, we most certainly do...

[carlfense]

 

I I think my main problem with these sorts of business is the fundamental lack of fairness. .

 

We're increasingly becoming a society of haves and have nots. In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

 

How do we define "fair" when it comes to pay, do you feel the same about athletes and actors? This brings up other questions, should we have a maximum wage in the US (I've heard this floated before), should people like Bill Gates not be allowed the spoils of his company, because one person having that much wealth is unfair?

 

I dont know how much we are have and have nots, I guess it depends on how you define it, not many of us will ever be able to afford a Rolls Royce, but almost all of us will own a car, a TV, cell phone, computer etc, etc... Not to say we dont have poor people in this country, we most certainly do...

A maximum wage? No. I haven't heard that floated before. I don't know what the point would be.

 

My concern is that the same people who complain about teachers/union workers/auto workers/etc. being paid the same regardless of performance (or lack thereof) don't seem to have the same complaint about CEOs with the same disconnect between productivity and pay. Why is that? Is it because they have been carefully rebranded as "job creators?"

 

We'll always have "haves" and "have-nots." I am in no way arguing that we should equalize pay across the board. I'm saying that income disparity is the highest that it has been since immediately prior to the great depression. I'm saying that pay for workers is no longer strongly correlated with their productivity. I'm saying that I think that is a problem and fundamentally unfair.

[JJ Husker]

 

I'm assuming here (and I know what happens when I assume) but I doubt that you employ hundreds or thousands of workers and have multiple CEO/VP/etc. upper management positions. If so, our business ownership experiences are probably fairly similar. Different fields, I'm sure, but roughly similar in scope.

 

Your (and my) type of business is not the type that I was referring to. I was talking about the very large corporate businesses where the CEOs have multi-million dollar golden parachutes while any employer below the VP level either sees their wages stagnating or layoffs. I think my main problem with these sorts of business is the fundamental lack of fairness. The upper management positions get millions in pay and bonuses regardless of their performance while the average joe is just cut loose. That sort of attitude is more suited to an aristocratic society than what I believe the US to be.

 

We're increasingly becoming a society of haves and have nots. In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

 

You assumed correctly. We are a very small employer. I understand and agree that it is the very large corporations where the greed and unfairness come into play. Some of those CEO's, CFO's VP's etc. are paid way too much when compared to what most of their lower level workers, and the rest of us, are paid. It's not right and it's not the way it should be but I do feel that about the only way to correct it is through basic economic principles of supply and demand. At least I would prefer that method to the government interfering in the business sector. I realize with these very large companies that it won't happen overnight or as quick as we would like. However, I do think it would be much more effective for people, who dislike the exhorbitantly high CEO type pay, to cease patronizing those businesses or working for them. I feel that is much better action than occupying a park somewhere and leaving the impression that you are a disgruntled bum who would rather protest than work for a days wage.

 

One of the problems I have with this whole scenario is that hard working small business owners, who have some good years, can easily get lumped in with these overcompensated CEO's. Maybe not the multi-million dollar income level but into the mid 6 figures anyway. I think there is a distinct difference between these 2 groups of people and I hate to think that the only way to fix the problem involves punishing both groups equally. Small business owners employ a heck of a lot of people and are more of a backbone for our economy than these mega employers IMO. In many cases they earn into the level that is being discussed to be taxed more. Also, our government needs to not bail them out when economic reality comes calling and they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

It would seem we are in some level of agreement on this one

[carlfense]

 

I'm assuming here (and I know what happens when I assume) but I doubt that you employ hundreds or thousands of workers and have multiple CEO/VP/etc. upper management positions. If so, our business ownership experiences are probably fairly similar. Different fields, I'm sure, but roughly similar in scope.

 

Your (and my) type of business is not the type that I was referring to. I was talking about the very large corporate businesses where the CEOs have multi-million dollar golden parachutes while any employer below the VP level either sees their wages stagnating or layoffs. I think my main problem with these sorts of business is the fundamental lack of fairness. The upper management positions get millions in pay and bonuses regardless of their performance while the average joe is just cut loose. That sort of attitude is more suited to an aristocratic society than what I believe the US to be.

 

We're increasingly becoming a society of haves and have nots. In my opinion, that is not a good thing.

 

You assumed correctly. We are a very small employer. I understand and agree that it is the very large corporations where the greed and unfairness come into play. Some of those CEO's, CFO's VP's etc. are paid way too much when compared to what most of their lower level workers, and the rest of us, are paid. It's not right and it's not the way it should be but I do feel that about the only way to correct it is through basic economic principles of supply and demand. At least I would prefer that method to the government interfering in the business sector. I realize with these very large companies that it won't happen overnight or as quick as we would like. However, I do think it would be much more effective for people, who dislike the exhorbitantly high CEO type pay, to cease patronizing those businesses or working for them. I feel that is much better action than occupying a park somewhere and leaving the impression that you are a disgruntled bum who would rather protest than work for a days wage.

 

One of the problems I have with this whole scenario is that hard working small business owners, who have some good years, can easily get lumped in with these overcompensated CEO's. Maybe not the multi-million dollar income level but into the mid 6 figures anyway. I think there is a distinct difference between these 2 groups of people and I hate to think that the only way to fix the problem involves punishing both groups equally. Small business owners employ a heck of a lot of people and are more of a backbone for our economy than these mega employers IMO. In many cases they earn into the level that is being discussed to be taxed more. Also, our government needs to not bail them out when economic reality comes calling and they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

 

It would seem we are in some level of agreement on this one

Regarding the bold: I think so too.

 

The solution (if any) will be the hard part.

[gobiggergoredder]

In my opinion the decline of the Unions are one of the primary reasons our economy has suck to where it is. It is also a primary reason for the income inequity. Too many stupid, shortsighted people falling for GOP propaganda when it comes to Unions. If it were not for them, our working class would look like China's.

 

But hey, thats what the GOP wants, and it would be good for the costs of big business and the pocketbooks of the ultra wealthy. And that is all that really matters right?

 

You sir are 100% wrong. Our economy struggles do the lack of good jobs for people that have a high school diploma and want to work hard (manufacturing). That has nothing to do with unions. It has everything to do with unfree trade. Because of unfree trade, it is cheaper to make poor quality product in other countries. We (American's) would rather pay a few bucks less for the crap made in China.

 

Corporations have been breaking unions for years because you have no chance of competing on the world stage. I worked at a facility that was built to bust a union in the 60's. Yes, as in 1960's. We were the highest producing facility in our 'niche' for decades. A lot of people, at all levels, made a lot of money. Methodologies like 'lean' and 'just in time' must be flexible and the union environment isn't. Production workers at Toyota-USA, Hyundai or Nissan work for $25-$35 per hour with benefits producing vehicles that people want.

 

There are theories around that the GM bailout was to avoid bankrupcy. Some say it is almost certain GM and Chrysler would have been able to blow up the union contracts that they were under had they gone the bankrupcy route. Too big to fail, saving the union contract or both?...you decide.

 

At the end of the day I think we are to blame. We buy crap and have no problem with unfree trade.

 

As unions have been declining, so has the middle/working class.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on you, but your analysis is just lazy. Why don't you tell us about how a guy use to make a ton of money working for a company that made steam engines or horse drawn carriages? Times change. This is a Carlfense X = Y argument.

 

Global temperatures are rising while union membership is declining. That means global temperatures would go down if more people joined unions.

[carlfense]

This is a Carlfense X = Y argument.

[HSKR]

Just for some reference, some roughly estimated numbers.....

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

 

Current US population~311 million

of that population around 40% are in the workforce~124 million workers

out of the 124 million workers about~12% are union workers~15 million

Out of that 15 million the split is about 50-50 public vs private sector employees. 7.5 million workers each.

Out of those 7.5 million public sector workers, about 2.6 million of those are federal workers who are going to get taken care of whether they belong to a union or not.

 

I guess I come away with the thought of whether you side with unions or are against, as a whole there seems to be disproportional big stink about unions considering their relatively small size in the workforce and population as a whole.

[Hayseed]

The unions people like are almost extinct. The majority of unions are government unions that shouldn't exist given their ability to influence elections and basically elect their employer who gives them whatever they want in return. Most of the others are government related....railroad, ports, trucking, and construction companies that rely heavily on government contracts that require union wages for no obvious reason. Ask anyone who has worked for or around a union about nepotism and other forms of favoritism in hiring and you'll understand why the average guy with any sense of fairness despises these closed family shops.

 

It's a pendulum that swings according to work conditions and perceived fairness and that doesn't go unnoticed by large corporations that keep a close eye on their employee's feelings about the workplace and try to head off any problems in advance. Most employees and employers understand the give and take involved in advancement and profitability for both and see the union/robber baron relationship as the extreme they don't want. Better to work for a fair employer than two tyrants.

[Yossarian]

Just for some reference, some roughly estimated numbers.....

http://www.bls.gov/n.../union2.nr0.htm

 

Current US population~311 million

of that population around 40% are in the workforce~124 million workers

out of the 124 million workers about~12% are union workers~15 million

Out of that 15 million the split is about 50-50 public vs private sector employees. 7.5 million workers each.

Out of those 7.5 million public sector workers, about 2.6 million of those are federal workers who are going to get taken care of whether they belong to a union or not.

 

I guess I come away with the thought of whether you side with unions or are against, as a whole there seems to be disproportional big stink about unions considering their relatively small size in the workforce and population as a whole.

 

My tax dollars do not pay for high UMW wages or retirement. Public sector workers get paid more than their private sector peers and retire at 25 years with 90 percent of their pay. And tax dollars pay for it. And the public sector union member numbers are the same as private sector? And they cannot be easily fired according to law, not union agreements. Ah, that's the rub.