Minimum Wage and Unionization (split)

[Loren Pechtel]

Unions are the equivalent of employers blacklisting.

Union: You don't agree to our terms, you get no workers.
Blacklisting: You don't agree to our terms, nobody will hire you.

Both are a form of extortion.

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

 

[bilby]

The first hundred and fifty-odd years of capitalism saw the work-week gradually declining, from 70 or 80 hours or more, down to 40. But for some reason it's been rock solid for about the last ninety years. We could get it moving again.

(* That is, Pareto-optimal from the point of view of the employees.)
(** "Some" means the non-members if the labor supply reduction is achieved by unionizing; it means those unskilled who are priced out of the labor force if it's achieved by minimum wage hikes. Same principle.)

Fundamentally, the standard of living (measured in $ available, not that this is non-linear with what you actually get for your $) will scale worse than linearly with the length of the workweek. A 32-hour workweek means a 30-40% drop in take-home pay. (Because the overhead costs of having an employee are unchanged.)

Why would you assume take pay would fall with a reduced workweek?

Because productivity would drop.

Would it?

Most jobs, particularly those with better rates of pay, have a vast amount of fat in them. Time spent staring out of the window, chatting around the water cooler, generally goofing off.

If you told people that they could go home an hour earlier, as long as all the work was done by then, the same work would get done in ~7/8 of the time.

People are less productive per hour, the more hours you demand that they put in.

Blue collar workers would probably produce less in fewer hours, because they typically don't set the pace. But in a service economy, most workers are not in that position.

In my experience, the more I have been paid, the fewer minutes of productivity per hour have been expected of me.

 

[bilby]

Unions are the equivalent of employers blacklisting.

Union: You don't agree to our terms, you get no workers.
Blacklisting: You don't agree to our terms, nobody will hire you.

Both are a form of extortion.

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

No, you're thinking of a general strike, where unions say "if you don't agree to our terms, nobody will work for anybody".

Such activity is very rare, and typically about wider political issues, rather than specific terms and conditions of employment.

 

[laughing dog]

Unions are the equivalent of employers blacklisting.

Union: You don't agree to our terms, you get no workers.
Blacklisting: You don't agree to our terms, nobody will hire you.

Both are a form of extortion.

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Moreover, unions do more than negotiate terms and conditions of employment. They can have mutual aid funds to help members in trouble. They help enforce the term and conditions of employment. They can encourage and enforce safety and training for their members. Captain Sullenburger credited his union safety training for his ability to safely ditch US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River, thereby saving 100s of lives.

Really, you don't know what you are talking about. There are good unions and bad unions, just like an institutions or social arrangements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The first hundred and fifty-odd years of capitalism saw the work-week gradually declining, from 70 or 80 hours or more, down to 40. But for some reason it's been rock solid for about the last ninety years. We could get it moving again.

(* That is, Pareto-optimal from the point of view of the employees.)
(** "Some" means the non-members if the labor supply reduction is achieved by unionizing; it means those unskilled who are priced out of the labor force if it's achieved by minimum wage hikes. Same principle.)

Fundamentally, the standard of living (measured in $ available, not that this is non-linear with what you actually get for your $) will scale worse than linearly with the length of the workweek. A 32-hour workweek means a 30-40% drop in take-home pay. (Because the overhead costs of having an employee are unchanged.)

Why would you assume take pay would fall with a reduced workweek?

Because productivity would drop.

Would it?

Most jobs, particularly those with better rates of pay, have a vast amount of fat in them. Time spent staring out of the window, chatting around the water cooler, generally goofing off.

If you told people that they could go home an hour earlier, as long as all the work was done by then, the same work would get done in ~7/8 of the time.

People are less productive per hour, the more hours you demand that they put in.

Blue collar workers would probably produce less in fewer hours, because they typically don't set the pace. But in a service economy, most workers are not in that position.

In my experience, the more I have been paid, the fewer minutes of productivity per hour have been expected of me.

And why would cutting the work week cut the fat %?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unions are the equivalent of employers blacklisting.

Union: You don't agree to our terms, you get no workers.
Blacklisting: You don't agree to our terms, nobody will hire you.

Both are a form of extortion.

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Assuming you have enough people who know the job but aren't part of the union.

 

[Bomb#20]

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Assuming you have enough people who know the job but aren't part of the union.

I.e., when what you're buying is generic then you have more options than when you're buying a specialty service. Same as insurance. My local bit of California has been drying out with global warming, so the fire danger is going up, so one insurance company after another pulled out . Now there's only one company left writing fire insurance on homes here. They've been raising rates every year, and if they leave I'm pretty screwed. I.e., their shareholders are the only people who know the job of how to profitably insure a house in my neighborhood, and they're all part of the one company. Still not extortion. If they raise rates enough and people keep paying them eventually one of the other companies will see their way to writing policies again.

 

[ZiprHead]

Iceland's Huge Four-Day Working Week Trial An "Overwhelming Success"

A social experiment in Iceland has investigated the pros and cons of working a four-day week. Now, the brains behind the trial have released a report and the findings are quite something: not only did people report feeling happier, healthier, and less stressed, many workplaces also became more productive.

The experiment was run by UK-based thinktank Autonomy and the Association for Sustainability and Democracy (ALDA) in Iceland. The full report, released on Sunday, can be read here [PDF].

From 2015 to 2019, two large-scale trials saw 2,500 people in Iceland (more than 1 percent of the country’s entire working population) cut their working hours from around 40 hours a week to 35 or 36 hours. The participants worked in a range of environments, including offices, shops, hospitals, daycare centers, etc, and involved those who worked a typical "9-to-5" day as well as non-standard shift patterns. Throughout the trial, the researchers interviewed workers and gathered data on their well-being and changes to the workplace.

The benefits were clear: peoples’ well-being increased across a range of indicators, from perceived stress and risk of “burnout,” to physical health and work-life balance.

Most participants reported having more energy for other activities, such as socializing, exercising, and hobbies, while explaining the cut in hours allowed them to spend more time with their families and made it easier to complete other home chores. These benefits were especially noticeable among the single-parent families included in the trials. Men in heterosexual partnerships also took on more housework and greater domestic responsibilities, sharing out the division of labor more evenly.

“I work less… For me, it is like a gift from the heavens. And I like it a lot,” one participant said in an interview.

I know it's a little old but seems pertinent.

 

[laughing dog]

Unions are the equivalent of employers blacklisting.

Union: You don't agree to our terms, you get no workers.
Blacklisting: You don't agree to our terms, nobody will hire you.

Both are a form of extortion.

Buffett: You don't pay your premium, you get no insurance.

Is that a form of extortion?
What your union says sounds to me more like Buffett than blacklisting.

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Assuming you have enough people who know the job but aren't part of the union.

That assumption is reality-based unlike your ramblings. Moreover, there are union workers who cross picket lines. Go to Austin, Mn and ask about the Hormel strike (https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2...f-minnesotas-most-contentious-labor-disputes/ ). Not only did the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) governor call in the National Guard to protect the scabs, union workers crossed the picket line. There are families today who will not talk to one another over this which was almost 40 years ago.

 

[Bomb#20]

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Assuming you have enough people who know the job but aren't part of the union.

That assumption is reality-based unlike your ramblings. Moreover, there are union workers who cross picket lines. Go to Austin, Mn and ask about the Hormel strike (https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2...f-minnesotas-most-contentious-labor-disputes/ ). Not only did the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) governor call in the National Guard to protect the scabs, union workers crossed the picket line. There are families today who will not talk to one another over this which was almost 40 years ago.

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

The whole event is an object lesson in the importance of the unity part of "union". If the local and the parent union hadn't been butting heads the whole time it might have come out very differently.

 

[laughing dog]

You not paying your premium only means that company won't deal with you, not that nobody will deal with you.

Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you.

That is incredibly ignorant, especially in this day and age. Unions cannot legally prevent people who cross picket lines. Hell, there are companies in the US who will bus in workers to cross picket lines.

Assuming you have enough people who know the job but aren't part of the union.

That assumption is reality-based unlike your ramblings. Moreover, there are union workers who cross picket lines. Go to Austin, Mn and ask about the Hormel strike (https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2...f-minnesotas-most-contentious-labor-disputes/ ). Not only did the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) governor call in the National Guard to protect the scabs, union workers crossed the picket line. There are families today who will not talk to one another over this which was almost 40 years ago.

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

That is untrue. From the article

Even though the strike was peaceful at this point, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent in the National Guard to protect non-union workers.

Furthermore, Hormel brought in non-union workers.

 

[Bomb#20]

That assumption is reality-based unlike your ramblings. Moreover, there are union workers who cross picket lines. Go to Austin, Mn and ask about the Hormel strike (https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2...f-minnesotas-most-contentious-labor-disputes/ ). Not only did the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) governor call in the National Guard to protect the scabs, union workers crossed the picket line. There are families today who will not talk to one another over this which was almost 40 years ago.

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

That is untrue. From the article

Even though the strike was peaceful at this point, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent in the National Guard to protect non-union workers.

Standing in somebody's way so he can't get past you is peaceful. Doesn't mean you aren't playing Loren's "Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you." game.

From Wikipedia:

"On the date of the plant's reopening, hundreds of strikers blocked access to the plant, which they proceeded to do for the next several days.[22] In light of this blocking and increasing hostilities from the strikers, on January 21, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent the Minnesota National Guard to protect the strikebreakers."​

Furthermore, Hormel brought in non-union workers.

And?

 

[laughing dog]

That assumption is reality-based unlike your ramblings. Moreover, there are union workers who cross picket lines. Go to Austin, Mn and ask about the Hormel strike (https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2...f-minnesotas-most-contentious-labor-disputes/ ). Not only did the DFL (Democratic Farm Labor) governor call in the National Guard to protect the scabs, union workers crossed the picket line. There are families today who will not talk to one another over this which was almost 40 years ago.

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

That is untrue. From the article

Even though the strike was peaceful at this point, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent in the National Guard to protect non-union workers.

Standing in somebody's way so he can't get past you is peaceful. Doesn't mean you aren't playing Loren's "Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you." game.

From Wikipedia:

"On the date of the plant's reopening, hundreds of strikers blocked access to the plant, which they proceeded to do for the next several days.[22] In light of this blocking and increasing hostilities from the strikers, on January 21, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent the Minnesota National Guard to protect the strikebreakers."​

The article I cited wrote

In January 1986, Hormel reopened the plant and asked the striking P-9 members to return to work while also accepting applications from non-union workers. Around 500 union members returned to Hormel.....

It is not possible to return to work without actually getting into the worksite.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Iceland's Huge Four-Day Working Week Trial An "Overwhelming Success"

A social experiment in Iceland has investigated the pros and cons of working a four-day week. Now, the brains behind the trial have released a report and the findings are quite something: not only did people report feeling happier, healthier, and less stressed, many workplaces also became more productive.

The experiment was run by UK-based thinktank Autonomy and the Association for Sustainability and Democracy (ALDA) in Iceland. The full report, released on Sunday, can be read here [PDF].

From 2015 to 2019, two large-scale trials saw 2,500 people in Iceland (more than 1 percent of the country’s entire working population) cut their working hours from around 40 hours a week to 35 or 36 hours. The participants worked in a range of environments, including offices, shops, hospitals, daycare centers, etc, and involved those who worked a typical "9-to-5" day as well as non-standard shift patterns. Throughout the trial, the researchers interviewed workers and gathered data on their well-being and changes to the workplace.

The benefits were clear: peoples’ well-being increased across a range of indicators, from perceived stress and risk of “burnout,” to physical health and work-life balance.

Most participants reported having more energy for other activities, such as socializing, exercising, and hobbies, while explaining the cut in hours allowed them to spend more time with their families and made it easier to complete other home chores. These benefits were especially noticeable among the single-parent families included in the trials. Men in heterosexual partnerships also took on more housework and greater domestic responsibilities, sharing out the division of labor more evenly.

“I work less… For me, it is like a gift from the heavens. And I like it a lot,” one participant said in an interview.

I know it's a little old but seems pertinent.

I read a similar article awhile back, a US based employer doing this. Half way through the article, was mentioned that third day off, was not connected to the other two. Why would you not let people connect the three off days together? Cruelty? I'm glad I never worked in the private sector.

My last two jobs were both 4/10s. Even with ten hour days; totally worth it. And if Monday is a legal holiday, bonus fourth day off. It's like earning a living and getting to enjoying life too. Amazing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

That is untrue. From the article

Even though the strike was peaceful at this point, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent in the National Guard to protect non-union workers.

Furthermore, Hormel brought in non-union workers.

Just because nobody had actually been attacked doesn't mean people weren't afraid of being attacked if they tried to cross the picket line.

 

[Bomb#20]

On that point you're actually giving Loren ammo. The reason the governor called in the National Guard was because the local was physically preventing people from crossing picket lines.

That is untrue. From the article

Even though the strike was peaceful at this point, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent in the National Guard to protect non-union workers.

Standing in somebody's way so he can't get past you is peaceful. Doesn't mean you aren't playing Loren's "Both unions and blacklisting are about nobody dealing with you." game.

From Wikipedia:

"On the date of the plant's reopening, hundreds of strikers blocked access to the plant, which they proceeded to do for the next several days.[22] In light of this blocking and increasing hostilities from the strikers, on January 21, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sent the Minnesota National Guard to protect the strikebreakers."​

The article I cited wrote

In January 1986, Hormel reopened the plant and asked the striking P-9 members to return to work while also accepting applications from non-union workers. Around 500 union members returned to Hormel.....

It is not possible to return to work without actually getting into the worksite.

You appear to be arguing that Wikipedia must necessarily be wrong because the fact that some people got into the plant proves nobody was being blocked from getting into the plant.

Good point. Reminds me of that huge gaping plot hole in Gone With the Wind. Remember when Rhett Butler was the hero of the day because he got in a shipload of supplies from Europe to the Confederacy, even though it says in the same book that the Union was blockading the Southern ports? It's unbelievable how Margaret Mitchell was given a pass on such a blatant self-contradiction.