Michigan becomes another Right to Work state :-)

[charveldan]

My best friend is in Local #1 Electricians, he makes $29 bucks an hour, trouble is in the last 3 years he's worked 8 months [not all at once]. Best they get is a 30 day or 90 day hit and back on unemployment which will run out soon.

Plus he loses his healthcare and has been told by the hall not to expect any work for the next 2 years.

The unions are fat with members and have no work to sustain them.

[Charlie_Sheen]

lolunions

[newholland]

i'd be really interested to see the data extrapolated of corporate earnings in RTW states versus non RTW states. on one hand- the lower unemployment rates are a bonus. but i wonder if the 10% (on average) lower wages make for correspondingly lower corporate earnings in those states. i'm curious to know if the management running the businesses in those states are being pigs and just exploiting the fact for their own wealth. i wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it, but i do wonder if there's an actual equilibrium, or just greed running the show.

[la0tsu]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

Jobs, there are more than one. My god is everyone so terrified of finding a new job? I understand revenge and wanting whats right but if your boss is this bad what exactly are you winning here? The right to make money for a guy that hates you? Even if its just your immediate superior if the guy is that bad chances are his bosses know it and probably dont care thus meaning you make different bastards more money.

 

First off, there are more job seekers than there are jobs. So while there is more than one job, there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get one if you leave your current one. It's not like you can just go down to the customer service desk at the job store and exchange your current job for another one. And If you have a kid, it's not about you any more. It's about that kid, and the vast majority of people will stay at a job that they don't like to keep a roof over that kid's head.

[Rear Naked]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

i'd be really interested to see the data extrapolated of corporate earnings in RTW states versus non RTW states. on one hand- the lower unemployment rates are a bonus. but i wonder if the 10% (on average) lower wages make for correspondingly lower corporate earnings in those states. i'm curious to know if the management running the businesses in those states are being pigs and just exploiting the fact for their own wealth. i wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it, but i do wonder if there's an actual equilibrium, or just greed running the show.

 

Can you explain a bit more what you mean? I didnt follow that very well.

[newholland]

Originally Posted by Rear Naked

Can you explain a bit more what you mean? I didnt follow that very well.

what i mean is-- there are benefits in states with right to work. apparently, they have lower unemployment rates. BUT, on average, their incomes are 10% lower than the median.

i wonder if the earnings of the top brass in companies with right to work make 10% less than other executives, or if companies gravitate to these places and exploit the fact that people make less and pay themselves more. i mean-- in some ways-- yep-- good business, right? hell.. we do it with china, right?

but it looks pretty {censored}ty when you do it to americans, right?

i wonder if anybody uses such logic, and i wonder if that's the reality of the situation-- that the veil's off, and it's now kosher for americans to exploit americans- where it could at least be hidden by doing it abroad before?

i dunno- i'm kinda just thinking out loud.

[la0tsu]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

i'd be really interested to see the data extrapolated of corporate earnings in RTW states versus non RTW states. on one hand- the lower unemployment rates are a bonus. but i wonder if the 10% (on average) lower wages make for correspondingly lower corporate earnings in those states. i'm curious to know if the management running the businesses in those states are being pigs and just exploiting the fact for their own wealth. i wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it, but i do wonder if there's an actual equilibrium, or just greed running the show.

 

Being a right-to-work state doesn't guarantee low unemployment. Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, for example, are all right to work states, and all have unemployment rates above the national average (NV: 11.8%; SC: 9.1%, FL: 8.7%). Meanwhile, Minnesota, Massachussets, and New Hampshire are all union States and all have lower unemployment than the national average (MN: 5.8%; MA: 6.5%; NH: 5.7%).

[la0tsu]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

i'd be really interested to see the data extrapolated of corporate earnings in RTW states versus non RTW states. on one hand- the lower unemployment rates are a bonus. but i wonder if the 10% (on average) lower wages make for correspondingly lower corporate earnings in those states. i'm curious to know if the management running the businesses in those states are being pigs and just exploiting the fact for their own wealth. i wouldn't be entirely surprised to see it, but i do wonder if there's an actual equilibrium, or just greed running the show.

 

Being a right-to-work state doesn't guarantee low unemployment. Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, for example, are all right to work states, and all have unemployment rates above the national average (NV: 11.8%; SC: 9.1%, FL: 8.7%). Meanwhile, Minnesota, Massachussets, and New Hampshire are all union States and all have lower unemployment than the national average (MN: 5.8%; MA: 6.5%; NH: 5.7%).

[theAntihero]

Originally Posted by la0tsu

First off, there are more job seekers than there are jobs. So while there is more than one job, there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get one if you leave your current one. It's not like you can just go down to the customer service desk at the job store and exchange your current job for another one. And If you have a kid, it's not about you any more. It's about that kid, and the vast majority of people will stay at a job that they don't like to keep a roof over that kid's head.

True economic downturn sucks but really there are no guarantees in life period. You cant guarantee that your current job isnt going to screw you over either. Might as well attempt to make money for someone who isnt a douche.

I dont know im just always suprised that most workers dont realize that the only thing the really have to bargain with is their actual work and companies make money off of you working. Maybe its because construction isnt usually a trade that you get one job and then hold it for 25 years. Dont get me wrong it can happen but ive probably worked for more companies than any 3 people on here combined.

[Charlie_Sheen]

weird. so it may be that being right-to-work or not doesn't determine unemployment rates...

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by la0tsu

Being a right-to-work state doesn't guarantee low unemployment. Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida, for example, are all right to work states, and all have unemployment rates above the national average (NV: 11.8%; SC: 9.1%, FL: 8.7%). Meanwhile, Minnesota, Massachussets, and New Hampshire are all union States and all have lower unemployment than the national average (MN: 5.8%; MA: 6.5%; NH: 5.7%).

 

no-- i know that-- that's a cited 'benefit' of right to work. i'm seriously just being a devil's advocate-- not pushing one agenda or the other.

[theAntihero]

Originally Posted by newholland

what i mean is-- there are benefits in states with right to work. apparently, they have lower unemployment rates. BUT, on average, their incomes are 10% lower than the median.

i wonder if the earnings of the top brass in companies with right to work make 10% less than other executives, or if companies gravitate to these places and exploit the fact that people make less and pay themselves more. i mean-- in some ways-- yep-- good business, right? hell.. we do it with china, right?

but it looks pretty {censored}ty when you do it to americans, right?

i wonder if anybody uses such logic, and i wonder if that's the reality of the situation-- that the veil's off, and it's now kosher for americans to exploit americans- where it could at least be hidden by doing it abroad before?

i dunno- i'm kinda just thinking out loud.

Does anyone know what union dues actually cost? I imagine its different for every union but the figures i was told by ex-union guys were quite high, but most these guys werent exactly reliable info sorts of guys.

[Rear Naked]

Originally Posted by newholland

what i mean is-- there are benefits in states with right to work. apparently, they have lower unemployment rates. BUT, on average, their incomes are 10% lower than the median.

i wonder if the earnings of the top brass in companies with right to work make 10% less than other executives, or if companies gravitate to these places and exploit the fact that people make less and pay themselves more. i mean-- in some ways-- yep-- good business, right? hell.. we do it with china, right?

but it looks pretty {censored}ty when you do it to americans, right?

i wonder if anybody uses such logic, and i wonder if that's the reality of the situation-- that the veil's off, and it's now kosher to exploit americans?

i dunno-i'm kinda just thinking out loud.

Why would you think that executive pay would be less in a right to work state? I don't think there would be any reason for it to be so.

Of course companies gravitate to these places becasue it is cheaper to hire workers. Thats kind of the point.

I guess I just don't think paying market wage is immoral

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

Does anyone know what union dues actually cost? I imagine its different for every union but the figures i was told by ex-union guys were quite high, but most these guys werent exactly reliable info sorts of guys.

 

mine are 1.44% of my pay.

[newholland]

Originally Posted by Rear Naked

Why would you think that executive pay would be less in a right to work state? I don't think there would be any reason for it to be so.

Of course companies gravitate to these places becasue it is cheaper to hire workers. Thats kind of the point.

I guess I just don't think paying market wage is immoral

so what's market wage for a corporate executive? is it 700 times the average employee? or 770 times (just add 10% for the bonus for hiring lower paid americans)?

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

mine are 1.44% of my pay.

 

Thats not bad at all. One guy who was in a Steel Workers union told me that he figured he had to work about 6 hours a week to cover his dues, which is what 15%?

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

so what's market wage for a corporate executive? is it 700 times the average employee? or 770 times (just add 10% for the bonus for hiring lower paid americans)?

 

oh pardon-- officially, i think it's more like 475 times, and if my math is correct, 525 times the average employee, if you use CEO pay as a guide...

[newholland]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

Thats not bad at all. One guy who was in a Steel Workers union told me that he figured he had to work about 6 hours a week to cover his dues, which is what 15%?

 

probably had a pension-- which'd make sense. I have a state retirement benefit, but it's not a pension-- so I can see if they DID.. that's a big infrastructure to haul around. I'm a tradesperson-- but it's not the same, 'cause we don't have a hall, there's no apprenticeship, there's not all the things that steelworkers would get if they got benched.. so makes sense.

[la0tsu]

Originally Posted by theAntihero

True economic downturn sucks but really there are no guarantees in life period. You cant guarantee that your current job isnt going to screw you over either. Might as well attempt to make money for someone who isnt a douche.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I dont know im just always suprised that most workers dont realize that the only thing the really have to bargain with is their actual work and companies make money off of you working. Maybe its because construction isnt usually a trade that you get one job and then hold it for 25 years. Dont get me wrong it can happen but ive probably worked for more companies than any 3 people on here combined.

So what you say is fine within your experience. But most work is not like construction work. I couldn't just show up at a company and have them put me to work as a staff accountant right away - there's so much training on company policies and thresholds and practices required to do the job well that companies are much more cautious with their screening of candidates. In construction, the knowledge required for one job is much more transferable - the skills needed to frame one house are the same as those needed to frame another. And I imagine the fact that the work is finite to a degree (once a house is built, the job is done - as opposed to accounting, where once you finish working on one month, another comes along) might give you less of a sense of security than we office drones are used to having.

Anyway, yes, people should have the freedom to leave a job they hate. But that has nothing to do with Right to Work laws.

[Rear Naked]

 

Originally Posted by newholland

so what's market wage for a corporate executive? is it 700 times the average employee? or 770 times (just add 10% for the bonus for hiring lower paid americans)?

 

I think exacutive pay negotiations are not based on some multiple of the average salary of the company's workers

[theAntihero]

Originally Posted by newholland

probably had a pension-- which'd make sense. I have a state retirement benefit, but it's not a pension-- so I can see if they DID.. that's a big infrastructure to haul around. I'm a tradesperson-- but it's not the same, 'cause we don't have a hall, there's no apprenticeship, there's not all the things that steelworkers would get if they got benched.. so makes sense.

I believe he was serving an apprenticeship but apparently there was a bunch of fees. He was paid $26 an hour and said his take-home was about $11.

Im not sure if he was lying about it though, if not thats a pretty steep price to pay just to work.

[theAntihero]

Originally Posted by la0tsu

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.



So what you say is fine within your experience. But most work is not like construction work. I couldn't just show up at a company and have them put me to work as a staff accountant right away - there's so much training on company policies and thresholds and practices required to do the job well that companies are much more cautious with their screening of candidates. In construction, the knowledge required for one job is much more transferable - the skills needed to frame one house are the same as those needed to frame another. And I imagine the fact that the work is finite to a degree (once a house is built, the job is done - as opposed to accounting, where once you finish working on one month, another comes along) might give you less of a sense of security than we office drones are used to having.

Anyway, yes, people should have the freedom to leave a job they hate. But that has nothing to do with Right to Work laws.

Fair enough, usually there are multiple jobs in front of you but i get your point. Im a concrete guy so there are jobs that im on just for a day or 2 and at one point i was doing the whole hired gun thing and working for something like 6 companies at a time.

[mbarn3065]

 

Originally Posted by theAntihero

Does anyone know what union dues actually cost? I imagine its different for every union but the figures i was told by ex-union guys were quite high, but most these guys werent exactly reliable info sorts of guys.

 

My U.A.W. dues is two hours pay each month. (and worth every penny!)

[newholland]

Originally Posted by Rear Naked

I think exacutive pay negotiations are not based on some multiple of the average salary of the company's workers

naw-- probably not. doesn't make it make SENSE that that multiple is so HIGH in the US.. but you're right.

that's why i'm wondering if the data extrapolates out to be just regional fluctuations ('cause RTW states are typically more rural), and ALL people make less in those states. i'm being inflammatory joking about it, 'cause that's just how i roll , but in all seriousness-- i'd love to see how the stats ACTUALLY pan out along those lines.

[Rear Naked]

Originally Posted by la0tsu

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.



So what you say is fine within your experience. But most work is not like construction work. I couldn't just show up at a company and have them put me to work as a staff accountant right away - there's so much training on company policies and thresholds and practices required to do the job well that companies are much more cautious with their screening of candidates. In construction, the knowledge required for one job is much more transferable - the skills needed to frame one house are the same as those needed to frame another. And I imagine the fact that the work is finite to a degree (once a house is built, the job is done - as opposed to accounting, where once you finish working on one month, another comes along) might give you less of a sense of security than we office drones are used to having.

Anyway, yes, people should have the freedom to leave a job they hate. But that has nothing to do with Right to Work laws.

You have a point, but only to the extent that it takes to find other work.

I think there should be some kind of friction on the employers side in firing, for the reason you state. But lets get real...there is no reason to stay with a {censored}ty employer for an extended period of time.