Stupid California!

[Bradskii]

So then it would stand to reason that a provision suggesting that a mom & pop shop in a rural area being forced to increase their labor costs (due to people living in big cities miles and miles away from them not making enough to live on) could create an even bigger challenge for them correct?

So you want anyone working for a mom and pop enterprise to unionise and carry out collective bargaining to ensure a living wage? The Denmark system is known as Flexicurity: Danish labour market

'It has three core elements:

1. Employers can hire and fire at will, without excessive costs for dismissing employees. Litigation surrounding dismissals is uncommon.

2. Employees who join and pay subscription fees to an A-kasse (unemployment insurance fund) get up to two years' dagpenge (unemployment benefit) after losing their jobs.

3. The Danish government runs education and retraining programs and provides counselling services to get unemployed people back to work as quickly as possible.'

Yeah, like that has any chance at all at working in the US. No litigation? In the US..? Two years unemployment benefit? And which administration is going to spend the money on education and retraining?

Every country that has a minimum wage has something similar. Not to the extent that the Danes have it, but collective bargaining is a given when you have enough people in a union. And they invariably get something greater than the minimum wage. Who on earth is going to bargain for less?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, that I don't agree with. There are ways for big unions to address the problems you raise, and in this country unions (whether you call them works councils or not) need to have serious political clout, maybe their own political party.

The big unions are too blunt an instrument for the same reason state & federal level minimum wage laws are too blunt an instrument with regards to wages.

And it's not that I'm arbitrarily referring to what the Nordic countries have as Works Councils instead of "Labor Unions"...it's because, despite both being collective bargaining entities, they are two different things.

One of the most commonly examined (and arguably most successful) implementations of this institution is found in Germany.[3] The model is basically as follows: general labour agreements are made at the national level by national unions (e.g. IG Metall) and German Employer Associations (e.g. Gesamtmetall), and local plants and firms then meet with works councils to adjust these national agreements to local circumstances. Works council members are elected by the company workforce for a four-year term. They don't have to be union members; works councils can also be formed in companies where neither the employer nor the employees are organized.


In the countries that use them, works councils don't need to be big (or be aligned with a party) to have "clout", they get their clout from the EWC Directive that states that workers at any firm can have one if they choose (and lays out the negotiating procedures), and if you're a firm with over 1,000 people, you have to have one. There's no reason why that model couldn't happen here.

The big labor unions can perhaps address things like occupational safety matters and working conditions (for instance, not being given enough water breaks, or not being given proper safety equipment... as those types of matters are more uniform throughout an industry regardless of what the cost of living is in a region), however, for wages, you need an entity that's a little "closer to where the rubber meets the road" so to speak.

The wage demands (with respect to cost of living) of an plant worker living in rural Alabama are going to be very different than that of someone on the West Coast or or New England region. Having a collective bargaining entity trying to find "a number that works for everyone, and is still practical" at a national (or even state) level is going to be an uphill battle.


That's where a lot of the progressives in the US are wearing some partial blinders with regards to some of this. They often proclaim that "we need to do things like these Nordic countries", but then only want to cherry pick the particular things they want, and ignore the complementary parts of their systems that make the whole thing work, in favor for retaining the things we have that haven't been working.

The free public college education debate is another prime example of that. "We need to have free college like they do Finland", they're all about the "free" part, but then fail to acknowledge that those countries (in order to keep that program solvent) implement things like very selective acceptance rates, and strict upper-limit quotas on how many people can study things like journalism, soft sciences, and fine arts.

 

[BCP1928]

The wage demands (with respect to cost of living) of an plant worker living in rural Alabama are going to be very different than that of someone on the West Coast or or New England region. Having a collective bargaining entity trying to find "a number that works for everyone, and is still practical" at a national (or even state) level is going to be an uphill battle.

Of course they are, and your pose of being fair and even-handed is beginning to show some holes as you misrepresent how unions work. Did you ever work in a union shop? Help organize for a union?

 

[Merrill]

That's how a minimum wage works. What you pay your workers depends on the market, their value to the business, the price you are being paid by the customers, local conditions, exchange rates etc. But what you pay must be a minimum wage.

If that's not how it works then maybe you are right and over 190 countries in the world are doing it wrong; List of countries by minimum wage - Wikipedia

My money is not on you.

Minimum wage is no the same thing as forcing every company to pay a "living wage"

sounds like the same thing, but it isn't

don't pretend like you are talking about entry-level teenage workers when you say companies need to pay a living wage, because that is not what you were talking about above. You were making a blanket statement about all industries and employment levels

 

[Bradskii]

You were making a blanket statement about all industries and employment levels

That's right. Barring some circumstances where you might be under training, that's exactly what I meant. I'm pleased that you understood what I said.

 

[Merrill]

That's right. Barring some circumstances where you might be under training, that's exactly what I meant. I'm pleased that you understood what I said.

and again, I will remind you that we cannot have the government setting wages for all industries

because I would love to know how that would work

 

[Bradskii]

and again, I will remind you that we cannot have the government setting wages for all industries

They don't. Why would you think they would? They set a minimum wage. Period. It's common in all countries. Except maybe Denmark, which has already been discussed. Even Switzerland, which was also mentioned, which doesn't have a federal minimum, has canton (state) minimums.

 

[BCP1928]

and again, I will remind you that we cannot have the government setting wages for all industries

because I would love to know how that would work

It wouldn't work, as you know, and nobody is suggesting such a thing, You're just playing hyperbole.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course they are, and your pose of being fair and even-handed is beginning to show some holes as you misrepresent how unions work. Did you ever work in a union shop? Help organize for a union?

Which part did I misrepresent?

Is the task unions are trying to accomplish not in the realm of acting as a negotiating entity for wages, benefits, and working conditions?

What I'm saying is that bigger national-level (and even state-level) unions are really only well equipped to handle the last two items. "Fair wages" is going to be highly regional-dependent. And a big singular negotiating entity doesn't tend to do that very well if the bigger unions we have today are any indicator.

For example, let's look at the UAW. I think we can agree that's a pretty well-funded, pretty powerful union with about as much political stroke as any union out there, correct?

Per ZipRecruiter:

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-UAW-Salary-by-State

An average UAW worker in Indiana ends up making $41k per year, and their average counterpart in NY makes $46k... Given the vast cost of living differences between the two states, it doesn't sound like they've got it nailed down quite right.

All things considered, they're not really performing any better than the non-unionized jobs in that regard in terms of factoring in the cost of living in the various states.
Just a few as an example:

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Accountant-Salary-by-State

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Janitor-Salary-by-State

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-FAST-FOOD-Worker-Salary-by-State

 

[Pommer]

Truck drivers (like most anyone else) can learn to do other things.

And, for the record, it’s not unskilled.

Driving is an art.
Driving a sedan on up to a largish pickup truck or a massive SUV is like painting by numbers, whereas tractor-trailer is at least at a Bob Ross level on up to a Raphael level.

Still, these jobs will be going by the way in 20-30 years.
The autonomous trucks won’t even have a place for a driver, just batteries, electronics and cargo.
If the hue and cry over the safety of such vehicles gets in the way, private roads will make a big comeback.

 

[Laodicean60]

"Fair wages" is going to be highly regional-dependent.

This is true in my union in NM I made less than those in California on the same project.

 

[Pommer]

and again, I will remind you that we cannot have the government setting wages for all industries

because I would love to know how that would work

Requiring a minimum wage isn’t some sort of slippery-slope to government setting the wages in all industries in the same sort of way that a government can mandate that vehicles on the road be safe isn’t a mandate that all vehicles have seat warmers.

Hyperbole is a great rhetorical tool when employed correctly and just asinine when not.

 

[BCP1928]

Which part did I misrepresent?

That national unions set nationwide wages.

Is the task unions are trying to accomplish not in the realm of acting as a negotiating entity for wages, benefits, and working conditions?

What I'm saying is that bigger national-level (and even state-level) unions are really only well equipped to handle the last two items. "Fair wages" is going to be highly regional-dependent. And a big singular negotiating entity doesn't tend to do that very well if the bigger unions we have today are any indicator.

For example, let's look at the UAW. I think we can agree that's a pretty well-funded, pretty powerful union with about as much political stroke as any union out there, correct?

Per ZipRecruiter:

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-UAW-Salary-by-State

An average UAW worker in Indiana ends up making $41k per year, and their average counterpart in NY makes $46k... Given the vast cost of living differences between the two states, it doesn't sound like they've got it nailed down quite right.

All things considered, they're not really performing any better than the non-unionized jobs in that regard in terms of factoring in the cost of living in the various states.
Just a few as an example:

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Accountant-Salary-by-State

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Janitor-Salary-by-State

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-FAST-FOOD-Worker-Salary-by-State

I'm not sure what those numbers are supposed to mean. Different kinds of jobs pay different wages in different states?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure what those numbers are supposed to mean. Different kinds of jobs pay different wages in different states?

No, it's supposed to show that in terms of adjusting to the cost of living in State A vs State B, large unions aren't doing a better job on that front than non-unionized places.

That national unions set nationwide wages.

Does the UAW not negotiate contracts that have a minimum and maximum amount defined, that is based on tenure, and not location?

Brands - TEGNA

www.verifythis.com

This was a fact check that was debunking an anti-union claim, but it lists the pertinent details.

Union employees of GM, Ford, and Stellantis are paid according to the collective bargaining agreement reached between the companies and the United Auto Workers.
In 2019, all of the Big Three automakers and the UAW signed contracts that set the current pay scale.
The contracts show full-time union workers at these companies are paid between $17 and $33 an hour, which is about $35,000 to $68,000 a year for a 40-hour workweek. Employees move up the pay scale as they gain seniority.
At GM, minimum base pay under the 2019 contract is $17 per hour. The maximum rate is $32.32 per hour.
At Stellantis, wages range from $17 to $31.77 per hour.
At Ford, wages range from $17 to $32.00 per hour.
Ford says the majority of its union workers have enough seniority to be paid the top rate and that the average wage of its UAW employees is roughly $28 per hour. Stellantis says its average is $30.47 for full-time workers. GM did not respond to VERIFY’s inquiry.



So if UAW negotiated a contract that says the maximum rate is $32.32 per hour (based on seniority, and not location), that hurts a UAW worker in Cali and potentially helps one that works in one of the cheaper states, yes?

$32/hour works out to roughly $67k a year...you can live alright on that in a place like Indiana or rural Kentucky. California and NY...not so much.


Bottom line, if the UAW is negotiating contracts that set a minimum and maximum amount that applies to everyone, coast to coast, and it's based on tenure and not performance or location, they're dropping the ball just as much as McDonald's or Walmart.

 

[Bradskii]

An average UAW worker in Indiana ends up making $41k per year, and their average counterpart in NY makes $46k... Given the vast cost of living differences between the two states, it doesn't sound like they've got it nailed down quite right.

You seem to be missing the operative word in the term 'minimum wage'. It's the first word. The 'minimum' bit. It's a low wage that is just enough to get by on. If you have some bargaining power in your job or there's a collective bargaining group or it's unionised then you will get more.

And the wages you quote are fine between Indianapolis and say, Saratoga Springs in NY. The cost of living in the latter is 10% more. So it's equivalent. See here: Cost of Living Comparison between Indianapolis, IN and Saratoga Springs, NY | Salary.com

But you don't get paid extra because you want to live in Chelsea or you want a riverside house on the White River. You live where you can afford to live. A minimum wage doesn't adjust to suit your lifestyle preferences. What you might get over and above that purely depends on your value to your employer.

 

[Bradskii]

This is true in my union in NM I made less than those in California on the same project.

But I would suggest that both wages were over the minimum wage for that state.

 

[BCP1928]

No, it's supposed to show that in terms of adjusting to the cost of living in State A vs State B, large unions aren't doing a better job on that front than non-unionized places.




Does the UAW not negotiate contracts that have a minimum and maximum amount defined, that is based on tenure, and not location?

Brands - TEGNA

www.verifythis.com

This was a fact check that was debunking an anti-union claim, but it lists the pertinent details.

Union employees of GM, Ford, and Stellantis are paid according to the collective bargaining agreement reached between the companies and the United Auto Workers.
In 2019, all of the Big Three automakers and the UAW signed contracts that set the current pay scale.
The contracts show full-time union workers at these companies are paid between $17 and $33 an hour, which is about $35,000 to $68,000 a year for a 40-hour workweek. Employees move up the pay scale as they gain seniority.
At GM, minimum base pay under the 2019 contract is $17 per hour. The maximum rate is $32.32 per hour.
At Stellantis, wages range from $17 to $31.77 per hour.
At Ford, wages range from $17 to $32.00 per hour.
Ford says the majority of its union workers have enough seniority to be paid the top rate and that the average wage of its UAW employees is roughly $28 per hour. Stellantis says its average is $30.47 for full-time workers. GM did not respond to VERIFY’s inquiry.



So if UAW negotiated a contract that says the maximum rate is $32.32 per hour (based on seniority, and not location), that hurts a UAW worker in Cali and potentially helps one that works in one of the cheaper states, yes?

$32/hour works out to roughly $67k a year...you can live alright on that in a place like Indiana or rural Kentucky. California and NY...not so much.


Bottom line, if the UAW is negotiating contracts that set a minimum and maximum amount that applies to everyone, coast to coast, and it's based on tenure and not performance or location, they're dropping the ball just as much as McDonald's or Walmart.

I'm not sure what your point is, here. We're talking about the bottom edge of the workforce, but UAW members are not that, and they have some input about what their wages are. Are you saying that big national unions negotiating with big national companies are bad? Shouldn't we let the members decide that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure what your point is, here. We're talking about the bottom edge of the workforce, but UAW members are not that, and they have some input about what their wages are. Are you saying that big national unions negotiating with big national companies are bad? Shouldn't we let the members decide that?

No I'm saying that it needs to be more localized if it's to have the desired effect. (Like what's done with the works councils that I've been elaborating on). The UAW defining a "top rate" and "range" that applies to everyone is too broad to be meaningful.

If a UAW worker making the top rate living in Indiana or Iowa is getting $32/hour, they're probably doing okay. A person living in Cali or NY (where the cost of living is higher, things are more expensive, and the state taxes are higher) making $32/hour isn't anything to write home about. -- especially for someone who's been at the job for over a decade.

Not to mention that if one of the goals is to create more of a balance between upper management salary and worker salary, you'd want it to be more localized as well as the aforementioned kinds of ranges for the workers doesn't apply to non-unionized positions by state.

For instance, a General Operations Manager for a plant in Iowa makes 92k, the same position for NY makes 155k... However the top rate for a UAW worker in both states is the $32/hour.

 

[Bradskii]

No I'm saying that it needs to be more localized if it's to have the desired effect. (Like what's done with the works councils that I've been elaborating on). The UAW defining a "top rate" and "range" that applies to everyone is too broad to be meaningful.

If a UAW worker making the top rate living in Indiana or Iowa is getting $32/hour, they're probably doing okay. A person living in Cali or NY (where the cost of living is higher, things are more expensive, and the state taxes are higher) making $32/hour isn't anything to write home about. -- especially for someone who's been at the job for over a decade.

This has absolutely nothing to do with a minimum wage. Which is $7.25 in both Indiana and Iowa.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This has absolutely nothing to do with a minimum wage. Which is $7.25 in both Indiana and Iowa.

So if both union and non-unionized jobs pay well over minimum wage in those states (and in many others)

Yet we still have people struggling, then what are the current minimum wage laws currently accomplishing?

Per the 2022-2023 statistics, only 1.3% of the workforce is paid at minimum wage. The rest of the workforce makes more than that. And 75% of the workforce already makes more than the 15/hour minimum that democrats have been floating as a national minimum wage.


So, I'll ask again, how is that a more effective use of government, as opposed to government merely setting the legal framework for protecting the ability for works councils to exist at the stop-floor/local level, and then getting out of the way and allowing the negotiations to happen?


Raising the minimum wage to say, $20/hour just lays the framework for people who make $20/hour to become the new working poor in 5-10 years when the supply side starts adjusting their prices accordingly.

The pragmatic reality that no matter what you try to enforce from a wage perspective, there are certain jobs and tasks that don't provide enough benefit to warrant paying enough to have an apartment/car with money leftover once things reach equilibrium.

Trying to address that with legally enforced minimum wages that artificially skew that just end up becoming the carrot at the end of the stick that you chase and never quite reach.

A negative income tax (which is a form of UBI) would be better as at least that relies on taxation to accomplish it instead of minimum wage laws, which ends up increasing product/service prices for everyone all the way up the chain.