The Lottery

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Just not for unions, eh?

---

I have no problems with unions lobbying. I have a problem with unions negotiating contracts on behalf of multiple workers and striking (or similar acts) if they don't get their way. That's the kind of behavior that's analogous to monopolies/cartels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I have no problems with unions lobbying. I have a problem with unions negotiating contracts on behalf of multiple workers and striking (or similar acts) if they don't get their way. That's the kind of behavior that's analogous to monopolies/cartels.

---

Can you imagine the log jamb if every individual worker had to negotiate their own contract? Besides, Chambers of Commerce routinely negotiate contracts with municipalities and have their own means of striking back at officials and municipalities who don't oblige them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Can you imagine the log jamb if every individual worker had to negotiate their own contract? Besides, Chambers of Commerce routinely negotiate contracts with municipalities and have their own means of stricking back at officials who don't oblige them.

---

Erm, about 88% of American workers negotiate their own contracts. :bored: God forbid that a worker's salary was based on their own effort and skill and not seniority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, about 88% of American workers negotiate their own contracts. :bored: God forbid that a worker's salary was based on their own effort and skill and not seniority.

---

I'd laugh but that'd just irritate you. Instead I'll request the source of this misinformation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I'd laugh but that'd just irritate you. Instead I'll request the source of this misinformation.

---

12% are unionized. Do the math.

Ever hear of minimum wage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Ever hear of minimum wage?

---

The minimum wage is still negotiated. :bored: Not that it makes a difference:

"Among those paid by the hour, 980,000 earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage in 2009. Nearly 2.6 million had wages below the minimum."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

That's about 3% of the work force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Ever hear of minimum wage?

---

Only a small fraction of employees in America work at the national minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The minimum wage is still negotiated. :bored: Not that it makes a difference:

"Among those paid by the hour, 980,000 earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage in 2009. Nearly 2.6 million had wages below the minimum."

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

That's about 3% of the work force.

---

With 18% actual unemployment (U-6, http://www.usdebtclock.org/) most workers have no relevant say in what they get paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Only a small fraction of employees in America work at the national minimum wage.

---

That small fraction still makes Loki's numbers incorrect even without taking into consideration what I posted above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

That small fraction still makes Loki's numbers incorrect even without taking into consideration what I posted above.

---

How are the unemployed relevant to the percentage of workers who negotiate their own contracts? :bored: Just admit you're wrong and move on. There's no need to prolong this discussion by an extra page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

How are the unemployed relevant to the percentage of workers who negotiate their own contracts? :bored: Just admit you're wrong and move on. There's no need to prolong this discussion by an extra page.

---

As I stated above, most workers do not negotiate a contract; they are hired under a take it or leave it policy. More people unemployed means more people hired under a take it or leave it policy.

Quote:

---

With 18% actual unemployment (U-6, http://www.usdebtclock.org/) most workers have no relevant say in what they get paid.

---

Well economic down turns of course creates a situation where more power is in the hands of the employer. Just as economic upturns causes more power to be in the hands of the employee. The employee can leave anytime they would like for other jobs. With few jobs of course that isn't always possible but depending on the skill set and talents the employee has they may have options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Only a small fraction of employees in America work at the national minimum wage.

---

There are something like 15 states that have a higher minimum wage because of living conditions. Several more states have conditions that can press minimum wages above federal, but happen to be inline at the moment. Not that I suspect it would increase the % drastically, but adding a limiting condition like by defaulting to only include federal minimum wage is poor form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

There are something like 15 states that have a higher minimum wage because of living conditions. Several more states have conditions that can press minimum wages above federal, but happen to be inline at the moment. Not that I suspect it would increase the % drastically, but adding a limiting condition like by defaulting to only include federal minimum wage is poor form.

---

You mean it's poor form to not spend an extra hour looking for a different source that would change the number from 3% to perhaps 3.5%, when the argument being refuted is about 50%?

if you're not going to spend the time you look it up, you don't have any grounds to claim its only going to be .5% :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

if you're not going to spend the time you look it up, you don't have any grounds to claim its only going to be .5% :noob:

---

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

+

Quote:

---

The presence of a sizable number of workers with wages below the minimum does not necessarily indicate violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as there are exemptions to the minimum wage provisions of the law. The estimates of the numbers of minimum and subminimum wage workers presented in the accompanying tables pertain to workers paid at hourly rates; salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded. As such, the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing Federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. Research has shown that a relatively small number and share of salaried workers and others not paid by the hour have earnings that, when translated into hourly rates, are at or below the minimum wage. However, BLS does not routinely estimate hourly earnings for non-hourly workers because of data concerns that arise in producing these estimates.

---

So 4.9% of hourly paid workers at or below the federal minimum wage, and I suppose that group increases by some unknown number if you go with state levels and also include those who aren't paid by the hour. Carry on.

So that's 4.9% of hourly paid workers paid at or below minimum wage. The percentage of salary workers is far lower, so the average of the two is still probably about 3%...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Why do you continue on insisting that capital is scarce and labor is abundant? We don't live in the third world. Individual firms don't get to set wages. If they set wages at an artificially low level, they'd get either no workers at all or the worst available workers. If your logic held, workers in most non-unionized industries would still get paid minimum wage. After all, why bother paying more? You, as the employer, have pricing power (over wages), right?

But can you get back to my question, please? Should we allow firms to get together and set wages? How about just in industries where labor is paid a lot (i.e. finance, engineering, medicine)?

---

In the low-skill areas where unions actually make sense, labor is indeed abundant. Sorry to burst your bubble. And I already answered your question. You still seem to thrive on your idiotic notion that the market will magically fix all ailments. I'm sorry, Loki, but you're naive. Not everyone has this pie-in-the-sky option of switching jobs whenever he feels like. That's a braindead notion in itself. I'm honestly astounded how you ignore everything problematic with your utopian idea of free markets but freely point out the problems of mechanisms which aim to fix some of those selfsame market problems. You're the picture of an ivory-tower intellectual who never stepped out of his door to get a whiff of what the real world looks like.

And you're comparing companies with a comparatively huge clout to individuals. Once again, companies are not people. Get that into your thick head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

That wasn't actually his point, but at least now you're addressing something.

---

You of all people should be very quiet when it comes to not answering questions, hypocrite.

Do you have any intention of answering my question or not?

Now that is funny. :haha:

Quote:

---

And you're comparing companies with a comparatively huge clout to individuals. Once again, companies are not people. Get that into your thick head.

---

Companies are a group of people working together. Be they a small business, corporation or whatever. Owning something doesn't mean one should have fewer rights simply because someone else does not own something.

Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights? :bulb:


-----
Loki could use more practice with taking part in discussions he isn't able to dictate the direction of. His hardon to keep the discussion isolated and limited to a very narrow (and ultimately irrelevant) exchange puts us back into the jackassary that we wanted to end in D&D. Loki is trying to flamebait (now appears successful) at best, troll at worst.

Dreadnaught, from the Tea Party threads to the beach threads, and everywhere in between, you have a pretty shitty record of answering direct questions. Even when they are on topic. You're not helping here, in fact you're feeding the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you have any intention of answering my question or not?

---

Repeating the same question 5 times demanding an answer is not constructive debating Loki, it is trolling. I think it's fairly widely frowned upon in this community to troll. Would you kindly either contribute to the discussion or quit posting in this topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you have any intention of answering my question or not?

---

I already answered the question, dimwit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights? :bulb:


-----
Loki could use more practice with taking part in discussions he isn't able to dictate the direction of. His hardon to keep the discussion isolated and limited to a very narrow (and ultimately irrelevant) exchange puts us back into the jackassary that we wanted to end in D&D. Loki is trying to flamebait (now appears successful) at best, troll at worst.

Dreadnaught, from the Tea Party threads to the beach threads, and everywhere in between, you have a pretty shitty record of answering direct questions. Even when they are on topic. You're not helping here, in fact you're feeding the problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I already answered the question, dimwit.

---

Folks, this is what we were talking about.

Hazir is being more constructive here. I think he's right; asking the same question several times isn't constructive. But not answering and resorting to petty insults (Khend) wastes space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

exchange puts us back into the jackassary that we wanted to end in D&D.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

this is what we were talking about.

---

Thanks for providing the link to the thread I was referring too.
Now to recongize when polarized questions are presented and pressed, yet are of little subsistence to the discussion. The fact your jumped khen after Loki committed his sin twice, shows the concept isn't completely understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Folks, this is what we were talking about.

Hazir is being more constructive here. I think he's right; asking the same question several times isn't constructive. But not answering and resorting to petty insults (Khend) wastes space.

---

Oh, sorry, you lost your authority when you engaged in the same activity you're now accusing me of. Hypocrite.

Sorry, Dread, but I hold moderators to a higher standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Oh, sorry, you lost your authority when you engaged in the same activity you're now accusing me of. Hypocrite.

Sorry, Dread, but I hold moderators to a higher standard.

---

Check your PMs if you haven't already.

Please don't switch to baiting a mod. You're becoming hostile out of proportion with what's going on. If the discussion is frustrating and you don't think they're getting your point, it's okay to just walk away. You too, Loki.

Can we end the disruptive meta discussion and get back to the actual subject? Here's the last thing said on-topic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Who suggested that owning something is removing an individual's rights? :bulb:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

If unions tip the balance of power too far in the other direction should they be forbidden?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Would like to see this movie, though it's honestly not hard to expose the NYC teacher's union for what it is. Though I am glad it's finally being presented in this format that anyone can see. As I've said before, there's a case to be made for banning municipal employee unions (not private unions).

---

There is something between allowing and forbid something. Regulate it. Set rules and limits.
In Switzerland, unions are not allowed to go for a strike once the signed a general work contract (GAV).