Those unions watching out for their workers...

[mathetes123]

What if circumstances are such that the wage agreed to stems from a pre-existing power imbalance? If, for instance, I offer you water in the desert in exchange for all your property, and you accept my offer (because you are desperate and don't want to die of thirst), then would that be a "fair" deal?

This is a strawman argument. The union workers have other options.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is a strawman argument. The union workers have other options.

Why can't you just answer the question? Is the deal "fair" just because you are willing to accept it?

 

[Assyrian]

No one is being exploited. They are not forced to work for hostess and are perfectly free to seek employment elsewhere.

Are there plenty of jobs that pay even better or are there not enough jobs and the few that become available are badly paid too because the wealthy business men have swelled their salaries and bonuses by driving down wages and shipping jobs to China? So workers who want to eat, to feed cloth and house their families are desperate for any work available. Fat cats have created this situation so they can get even fatter while paying their employees less and less. Is that what you consider a fair wage?

 

[Assyrian]

Do you think my proposal is made "fair" if you accept it?

So, 'gonna make him an offer he can't refuse' was actually fair.

 

[Thekla]

The free market forces of supply and demand determine what a fair valuation is. A fair wage is what people are willing to work for.

So you wrest the notions of "fair" and "just" away from God and posit them as belonging to "the market".

The secularist creep ...

 

[mathetes123]

So you wrest the notions of "fair" and "just" away from God and posit them as belonging to "the market".

The secularist creep ...

Matthew 20:1-16
Chapter 20
Laborers in the Vineyard
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you. ' 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day? ' 7 They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us. ' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too. ' 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first. ' 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. ' 13 But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? ' 16 So the last will be first, and the first last."

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's a little secret:

Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment - how else are you going to bully desperate workers into accepting wages that are so miserable that they cannot get by even if they work full-time?
As long as there's a sufficient percentage of equally desperate people queueing in front of the door in order to receive the "mercy" of having their labour exploited by the business owners, the employers can always go: "If you don't take my offer, there's plenty of others who will."

And chances are that with a sufficiently dismantles welfare state, plenty of people will do just that.

 

[MachZer0]

Exactly, not due to unions. I'm glad you've come around. The rest of this saw this same idea brought up on the first page of the thread.

Except that union workers can't expect to earn the same amount for producing a product that is less in demand.

 

[mathetes123]

Here's a little secret:

Capitalism needs a certain level of unemployment - how else are you going to bully desperate workers into accepting wages that are so miserable that they cannot get by even if they work full-time?
As long as there's a sufficient percentage of equally desperate people queueing in front of the door in order to receive the "mercy" of having their labour exploited by the business owners, the employers can always go: "If you don't take my offer, there's plenty of others who will."

And chances are that with a sufficiently dismantles welfare state, plenty of people will do just that.

Your socialist/Marxist president is managing quite well maintaining a high rate of unemployment and is pushing for more taxes for all (not just the rich) to add to those numbers as we move closer toward another recession. The lower wages are a function of a poorly performing economy, yet you would not think to blame the current administration. Instead you reward the administration by voting them back in office as a reward for the fine job they have done on the economy. You would prefer to demonize those that actually create the jobs, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

 

[Thekla]

Matthew 20:1-16
Chapter 20
Laborers in the Vineyard
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you. ' 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day? ' 7 They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us. ' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too. ' 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first. ' 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. ' 13 But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? ' 16 So the last will be first, and the first last."

"Whatever is right I will give you ..." does not equal 'whatever is given to you per 'the market' is right.

What about the Psalms, Isaiah, etc.

Or consider that every person working in the vineyard, regardless of duration or expertise, receives a good wage (the typical pay for a Roman Centurion).

 

[MachZer0]

And, that's what it really boils down to. There is just so much competition in the snack cakes market, and people really aren't going to pay premium prices for a product that doesn't taste any better and isn't any healthier than the less expensive competitor's product. All Hostess really had to separate themselves from the pack was history and nostalgia. Nostalgia might generate the occasional sale, but it isn't the type of thing that keeps a product line on the shelves. You really can't blame the unions or the workers for that. It is management's task to stay ahead of the curve.

That said, I assume that someone will buy the Twinkies brand and perhaps a few others, but I would bet that many of the brands that Hostess made will be gone forever.

I'm hoping one of our liberal friends will buy the brands, give the workers huge raises and the management huge cuts and prove to us that their business model will work

 

[MachZer0]

Why do you assume that some payrates are not overvalued (mgmt) and others (lower level employees) are ?

Why do you assume they are?

How do you decide what is and is not a fair valuation ?

I decide it's fair based on mutual agreement

 

[mathetes123]

"Whatever is right I will give you ..." does not equal 'whatever is given to you per 'the market' is right.

What about the Psalms, Isaiah, etc.

Or consider that every person working in the vineyard, regardless of duration or expertise, receives a good wage (the typical pay for a Roman Centurion).

The point was that the first persons hired had agreed to their wages up front and what those who came afterward made was immaterial because the jobs were the owners to give in the first place.

 

[Thekla]

The point was that the first persons hired had agreed to their wages up front and what those who came afterward made was immaterial because the jobs were the owners to give in the first place.

So how does this = the market is fair and just ?

 

[MachZer0]

So exploitation of desperation equates to 'fair'?

Isn't that the way the Democrat Party approaches minorities? They (the politicians) seem to think it's fair.

 

[Thekla]

Why do you assume they are?

I decide it's fair based on mutual agreement

Mutual agreement is only possible with absolute transparency and a level ground. Neither exist.

Nor do I assume that any pay is fair -- but what I do question is why you think that mgmt pay up to 300x more than employee pay is fair.

 

[mathetes123]

So how does this = the market is fair and just ?

A fair wage is what people are willing to work for. If they work in an unskilled field where they are competing with a larger work force, the wages will tend tobe on the lower end of the spectrum. As they invest their time in education and training and gain experience in more specialized fields that are in high demand, where they are competing with a smaller work force, wages will increase proportionately.

 

[mathetes123]

Isn't that the way the Democrat Party approaches minorities? They (the politicians) seem to think it's fair.

You got that right.

 

[mathetes123]

Mutual agreement is only possible with absolute transparency and a level ground. Neither exist.

Nor do I assume that any pay is fair -- but what I do question is why you think that mgmt pay up to 300x more than employee pay is fair.

In what way is there not a level ground?
It is the governments job to provide for equal opportunity, not equal results. That is where personal responsibility comes Into play.

 

[Thekla]

A fair wage is what people are willing to work for. If they work in an unskilled field where they are competing with a larger work force, the wages will tend tobe on the lower end of the spectrum. As they invest their time in education and training and gain experience in more specialized fields that are in high demand, where they are competing with a smaller work force, wages will increase proportionately.

Yet the owner of the vineyard in the parable pays an equal and generous wage (a Centurions wage for agrarian labor) regardless of the amount of time spent working or skill set.