Make it make sense

You're viewing a single thread.

133 comments

The difference is that when you say “I can’t pay my employees more” most employees begrudgingly accept the pay they get anyway. But when someone says “I can’t pay my rent”, the landlord evicts them.
If not paying your employees more actually resulted in having no employees, they would be equivalent. The only practical way to make that happen is unionization.
- It's bizarre seeing that disconnect in real life.
  At my last job, the wages were stagnant for years. The company held meetings to boast that they were making record profits, the highest increase yet. The following month, they refused to raise wages because it would be too expensive.
  Somehow, they were shocked when practically everyone who was skilled left. They couldn't get new people in the door, either.
  They ended up having to raise everyone's wages. (YAY union!)
- You're so close to hitting the fundamental truth here.
  A landlord evicts someone who cannot pay rent because there are other people who can pay rent.
  Employees leave if an employer pays too low if there are other, better-paying options available.
  As there are typically, though not always, more available workers than available jobs at a given pay rate, the workers lack the employer demand necessary to set pricing wholesale.
  The reason wages have been rising lately is because employers have been unable to find workers at previous salaries. There are most definitely businesses that have folded because of this - the business model for those companies did not account for higher wages, and raising prices was not possible in the interim.
  That's the actual interplay between these market forces, and yes, the reason that unionization is effective (and often necessary) in raising wages. It's why collective bargaining is an essential control on labor markets
- Correct. In one example the tenants are against the actual contract they need more than the landlord. In another it's the other way around with business owners and employees.
  It's about negotiating power. Life isn't perfect. Everybody has their own idea of humanism, fairness etc (albeit often similar to many other people). From that point to synchronize you either walk away, negotiate or use violence. The latter should cause immediate removal of the initiator from the society, though that doesn't happen IRL - IRL that initiator is sometimes rewarded by various cockroaches. Walking away or negotiating is what normal humans in general do with varying results.
- They accept it because what else can they do? A lot of them aren't in unions and even if all of them quit, how are they going to find new jobs?
  
  The thing is that it hurts the employer just as much as the workers if everyone quits, so if you unionize first, then threaten to stop working, then you've got someone who can negotiate with the employer so that you don't have to quit and you get paid enough to not make you want to quit.
  
  At my job, and I am looking for work elsewhere, you had to sign an employment contract saying you wouldn't unionize. That doesn't sound legal, but this is Indiana, so it probably is. If you want to know why I signed, I was desperate for a job.
  
  It's illegal. Every worker has the right by National Labor Relations Act.
  
  As said above, not a legal clause. So signing it is the smart thing to do -- you can just ignore it and unionize anyway if you want.
  
  It's nice that they get written consent to fuck their employees at least.
  
  If the corporations are making record profits, that means theyre hiring, it means you can go work for a rival.
  
  I'm looking. The problem is I have sort of a weird and eclectic resume, which doesn't look great to employers.
- Both wages and prices are those most advantageous to the owning class as most oppressive to the working class.
  The purpose of the post is to challenge the austerity narrative, of the immiseration of the working class being natural or necessary, more than simply desired by the greed of the owning class.

133 comments