If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some professor)   A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour   (robertreich.org) divider line 48
    More: Fail, Wal-Mart, salary, big-box retailers, unfair labor practice, workers earned, Sam Walton, technological change, pensions  
•       •       •

2986 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Nov 2012 at 10:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-22 07:42:23 AM
6 votes:
So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.
2012-11-22 10:49:26 AM
4 votes:
The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

A decade or so ago, a convention moved from one city, where it had been held for decades, to another, larger city a couple of states over. The new city had larger convention halls, more hotels, and was generally much better to hold a national convention in. The problem was, the new city was in a very union-friendly place, and everything was unionized.

The day before the convention was due to open, the trucks for the exhibitors and vendors rolled in. They'd been going to this convention (and others in the same field) for years, or decades. They knew the normal deal, roll in, set up your booth, unload your merchandise, get ready for tomorrow when tens of thousands of visitors would be strolling by.

Now, when they showed up, there were union reps waiting at the convention center. That convention center was a union shop. Since the vendors weren't part of the Union, they couldn't unload their own trucks, they couldn't set up their own booths, they couldn't even plug in their own lamps for their tables. They had to hire union laborers, union carpenters, and union electricians to get everything done, at union rates and union rules. Basically each vendor was being shook down for around a thousand dollars, on-the-spot, or they wouldn't be allowed to set up. Pay 3 guys for a minimum of 8 hours of labor despite only working about 1 hour each, at $30/hour, plus some hefty fees directly to the union). The workers could collect a full day's pay for simple unpaid labor (you shouldn't need a freaking electrician to plug a lamp into a socket on the wall, or a carpenter to set up a folding table and a couple of signs) at three times a reasonable rate for an hour of work, then do it again for a different vendor, getting paid for an entire weeks work at union rates in one afternoon.

There was a bit of a showdown, as you might imagine. Many vendors & exhibitors didn't have a thousand dollars or so to just throw at Union organizers on the spot to let them set up the trade show booths they'd already paid for with the convention organizers. Apparently some of the vendors from large corporations just threw them the money to end it, but some of the small businesses refused and started to do the work themselves (to threats and intimidation by the union members, and apparently formal complaints by the unions to venue management demanding they be banned from ever being allowed there again). The small businesses that ignored the unions said they basically had to keep a worker at their booth around the clock during the convention because occasionally, including late at night, goons would come by to see if the booth was unstaffed, presumably so they could damage/vandalize it.

After that, the convention stayed in the city, but some back-room deals had to be made with the unions between the convention organizers and the venue management. Unions didn't harass the vendors again in future years, but there was a curious spike in the cost of a booth at next years show.

It's behavior like that, that makes people not like unions.
2012-11-22 10:20:20 AM
4 votes:
The greedy assed corporations will kill their own golden goose.
For the past 30 years, wages have been declining as the money flows up into private wealth hoarding accounts. Declining wages undercut demand, which undercuts profits, which the ownership uses to require cost savings in the form of layoffs, which undercuts demand and so on and so on and so on, until the whole thing goes under.

Welcome to the vicious circle.
2012-11-22 09:45:00 AM
4 votes:
I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...
2012-11-22 08:54:28 AM
4 votes:
"America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week

/I know, it's more boring that way. "People making cars a half century ago earned a lot more than people in retail do today" is not much better, though.
2012-11-22 08:37:42 AM
4 votes:
What would be great is if Obama turned out to be a true socialist, and did something like said "American can't tolerate subsidizing the Walmart family any longer" and then nationalized the business, just took it over.

Epic lulz. Won't happen, but America needs an aggressive prosecution of companies that shove their expenses out onto the public (not providing health care, underpaying its employees leading to them being on food stamps, etc) .. while pocking billions in profits.

All so you dumb sh*ts can have cheaper crap from china.


// haven't shopped a wal mart in decades.

/// still visits peopleofwalmart.com though
2012-11-22 07:40:12 AM
4 votes:
Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

i.imgur.com
2012-11-22 03:54:30 PM
3 votes:

RickN99: A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour.


So why do we have fewer full time, quality positions?

Is Walmart offering their workers full time positions, and the workers are refusing?

Or is Walmart only offering part time position for the specific purpose of keeping salaries low?
2012-11-22 01:34:10 PM
2 votes:
farm8.staticflickr.com
.
2012-11-22 12:27:19 PM
2 votes:

Ed Finnerty: So stop shopping at Walmart. It's not rocket surgery.


The left isn't about alternatives and personal choice, it's about making sure the One True Path is followed. WalMart and Fox News don't fit that template and therefore must be vilified and, if possible, destroyed.
2012-11-22 12:21:17 PM
2 votes:
At the peak of its power and influence in the 1950s, the United Auto Workers could claim a significant portion of GM's earnings for its members.

Unfortunately, the UAW didn't learn the lesson of successful parasites: don't kill your host.
2012-11-22 11:46:42 AM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: That really is an excellent point.
Look at how much batteries cost back then, or a gas powered lawnmower, or a quality stereo.


You know, I'd trade those cheap 2010-era batteries and stereos any day, for a 1960-era job that would let me buy a house, raise a family, afford medical care, and a pension to take care of me when I'm old--all on one income.
2012-11-22 11:22:33 AM
2 votes:
subby is lying, but she knew that.

she claims that the 50 years ago, the average worker was making the same as the average GM worker (the average GM worker made 50/hour in today's dollar).

Then compares that to a low end retail worker.

Why don't you compare what an average retail worker made 50 years today vs. today if you want to at least pretend to be honest?

apples != oranges.
2012-11-22 11:09:42 AM
2 votes:

RickN99: >>A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour


A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour. 

/replaced the parts you decided to remove


?

So it didn't suck at GM, but Walmart is horrible. That was his point wasn't it?
2012-11-22 11:07:17 AM
2 votes:

stiletto_the_wise: So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.



No.

1. Exhibitors showed up.
2. Union folks said they weren't allowed to set up without paying off the union.
3. Some companies paid off the union, others didn't and were intimidated and threatened consistently for the next few days for not using union labor.
4. The convention went on, vendors threatened to leave, not come back, and generally the convention threatened to leave the town over the whole stink.
5. A back-room deal was made where the cost of booths went up, so the unions would get a kickback from the con in exchange for not bothering the convention. Now the unions get money from the convention for doing no labor at all.

Yeah, unions can be awful, when they just see places to shake down people for money.  You shouldn't need goddamn union thug permission (or around $1000 of payoff) just to unfold a table, plug in a lamp and a cash register, and unpack a few boxes of products.
2012-11-22 10:53:43 AM
2 votes:

Generation_D: High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.


Well considering even the union guys are not averaging $50/hour anymore I fail to see how this argument holds up, but unions are to blame for a lot of the downturn in the car industry with their selective striking against the big 3 back in the 70s to force them to submit to terms.

What was really amazing is that when they had to retool their lines for different makes or models, you would think the workers would help the plants do that since they are employees, right? No, there is a separate entity that retools the lines so I guess the other workers get put to work somewhere else or have to take time off during that re-tooling right? Well that would make sense but instead they get to come to the plant and "work" by playing cards, watching TV, eating donuts for 95% pay during that time, same as when they have sluggish sales, they show up to sit in a room then find out whos working then go home but they still got a lot of their pay.

Unions served a purpose at one time because of safety, now they are a hindrance to innovation and union leaders are just as shiatty as the companies from who they are supposed to "protect" workers. Im sure most of the 15,000 former Hostess employees would rather be working for a slight pay cut that was due to have half reinstated in a year rather than telling their families they wont have much of a Christmas this year. Unions seem to think they should be immune to economic downturn but thats not how business works, oh and before you think I am defending management, Im all for a federal law mandating that companies cannot give bonuses to execs if their lose money or take bailout funds.
2012-11-22 10:41:32 AM
2 votes:
cirby

Doesn't change the fact that the auto industry (GM, Chrysler, etc.) was the largest employer in the country back then, and their wages lifted wages for all workers. Walmart is now the largest employer, and their piss-poor wages are contributing to falling wages for all workers.
2012-11-22 10:36:32 AM
2 votes:
Reich pulls some real fast ones in that article. He compares the equivalent wage at General motors (full-time, skilled workers) with the average wage at a company that hires a lot of UNskilled workers.

He also lies a bit. Wal-Mart's starting "sales associate" (starting) salary average is about where he claims their average is (yes, they pay some people less - in areas where living costs are much, much lower). Their overall average is closer to $12 an hour, which is pretty good for mostly-unskilled labor... and much, much higher (adjusted) than unskilled labor used to get in the 1950s. US average pay is not, by the way, $50 per hour - it's closer to $20 per hour, and that includes skilled and unskilled pay.

The real kicker? When you compare average hourly wages for the whole US, with adjusted dollars, pay has increased by about 50% in the last half-century.

Of course, in 1960, Federal government spending was a bit over 1% of GDP. Now, it's over 7%...
2012-11-22 10:30:58 AM
2 votes:
If you want to understand the problem, and the solution, please read Retail's Hidden Potential: How Raising Wages Would Benefit Workers, the Industry, and the Overall Economy by Catherine Ruetschlin.
2012-11-23 04:32:31 PM
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Yet their economy thrives (with certain exceptions in Greece and Italy,


And Spain. And Ireland. The only country holding up Europe is Germany.
2012-11-23 03:04:58 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.



RLY? Ever hear of a guy named FORD?
2012-11-23 02:28:53 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Yes, you're absolutely corr....

Oh , fark it: Look, maroon, you're echoing a party line that utterly fails to account for the simple fact that Europe has thriving manufacturing and heavy industrial sectors. Strong unions. Strong social safety net. Universal health care. High wages. Robust infrastructure. Mom-and-pop stores everywhere. All of these are things that the argument you're aping claims to be unpossible in a global economy.


He's also failing to take into account the protective tariffs in the E.U. that make imports not exactly cost-effective, as well as the high taxes on the rich (especially capital gains) that pay for those things that they refer to as "necessities of life" and American Conservatives refer to as "entitlements".

Yet their economy thrives (with certain exceptions in Greece and Italy, but that has to do with their government - Germany has one of the strongest economies in the world). Funny thing, that. Conservatives will tell you that is impossible. Of course, they also tell you that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Jesus rode a dinosaur, and Global Warming is a hoax. It's like they believe so much in their ideology they refuse to look at the evidence of their own eyes in every single facet of the way they wish to govern.
2012-11-23 12:47:21 PM
1 votes:

kukukupo: Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.


Before I agree, are we measuring diagonally, or front-to-back?
2012-11-23 12:34:49 PM
1 votes:

kukukupo: Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.


Too bad you can't eat 50 inch tvs
2012-11-23 12:21:14 PM
1 votes:
Half a century ago I couldn't buy a 50 inch tv for $500.
2012-11-23 08:45:50 AM
1 votes:
www.feministfightback.org.uk


capitalism is a game where the winners take all
2012-11-23 08:00:38 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Tommy Moo: Too many workers.

No such thing. Oh sure you can argue too much supply leads to depressed wages, but if there's tons of workers around and no one is coming up with new ways to employ them, after all there's not a lot of market pressure prohibiting it, then you have a market failure.


The other day I was in a bar and a man in the bathroom offered to squirt soap into my hand and hand me a paper towel. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of coming up with new ways to employe people. When the manufacturing and mining sectors are saturated, new jobs tend to be created in the service sector, which generates no actual wealth, and can only be supported on the wealth generated by the creation of things of value. This is fine to a certain extent. A man who makes millions of gold widgets might rather use some of that wealth to have a person mow his lawn or walk his dog, but it's getting a bit ridiculous when we have to share our wealth with people who squirt soap into our hands. It's basically just disguised welfare at that point.
2012-11-23 06:11:36 AM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: The greedy assed corporations will kill their own golden goose.
For the past 30 years, wages have been declining as the money flows up into private wealth hoarding accounts. Declining wages undercut demand, which undercuts profits, which the ownership uses to require cost savings in the form of layoffs, which undercuts demand and so on and so on and so on, until the whole thing goes under.

Welcome to the vicious circle.


They just have to get into industries with captive consumers; privatized utilities, privatized prisons, and post-2014 health insurance.
2012-11-23 03:03:56 AM
1 votes:
The problem with America is that most people are still living in the past and not adjusting to the new world reality. Republicans want to live in the Norman Rockwell past. Democrats want to live in the post-war, heavily unionized past when there was no competition from cheap and HIGHLY MOTIVATED foreign labor. It's over folks. Sign up for Alibaba.com and see how fast some Chinese or Pakistani is emailing you to see what he can make for you. That's what's missing amongst America's lower classes. Everyone derides the notion of "job creators" as a falacy, and yet they sit around and wait for job creators to create a good paying job for them. Cheap foreign labor notwithstanding, it has never been easier to set up any kind of business, and manufacture and sell goods anywhere on the planet.

Yes, I know. I'm being all bootstrappy. But the lower classes in China, Pakistan, Brazil and a hundred other countries are being more bootstrappy than Americans and they are kicking the American workers' ass. Until things change, people will be stuck in Wallyworld, service economy jobs.
2012-11-23 02:39:28 AM
1 votes:

giftedmadness: EnviroDude: What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.

This

Many of you have no clue that it is the federal reserve that is destroying wealth in this country......thank the public education system for this


And this is why you shouldn't get your information from Ron Paul "gold standard" web sites. They omit a good bit of information regarding fiscal theory and practice here in the US, and you seem very silly when you act as if you know something that others don't.

Long story short, foreign holding in American currency from international trade, as well as rich people and corporations sitting on their cash reserves, cause a lack of real dollars here in the United States for paying employees and buying and selling goods and services. Instead of making this up by printing enough money to cover the difference, or at least buying dollars back from whatever country now holds them, "fake" currency is allowed to be issued by the banks. The banks generally only hold about 20% of their outstanding loans, meaning they just literally "make up" the money that goes into your checking account when you take out a loan, or the "credit line" you are given when you get a new credit card. Only about 20% or so of your credit line or your loan actually exists as real money. THIS is what's actually killing our currency, and not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is forced to work around such nonsense because the rules about how much money banks have to have in "real" money are made by Congress. (And with Barney Frank, the sole voice of reason left on the House Finance Committee, retiring after this year, there is no telling what might happen. Thankfully, we now have a few more intelligent people like Elizabeth Warren that might help keep the pro-business congress critters in check, although she's a Senator-to-be, not a Congresswoman).

This is inflated further when banks loan one another "money", as the same rules apply - Bank A might have an extra $20,000 over the daily FDIC close limit, while bank B is short $100,000. Bank A loans Bank B $100,000, $80,000 of which does not actually exist, in order for Bank B to close its books for the day. Bank B then "repays" Bank A the daily interest on $100,000 the following morning, and it's all good.

You should be down on your knees thanking the people at the Federal Reserve for working around this kind of crap and keeping the economy moving as much as it is.

If you ever wonder about the inflation of the late 80's through the early 00's, try correlating it with the large number of credit cards which were issued with no real money backing them during the same period. THIS is the cause of the economic woes you have blamed on the Federal Reserve (it also had a lot to do with the Clinton Boom and the money that people had to invest in the dotcoms, but that's another story).
2012-11-22 10:47:20 PM
1 votes:

schrodinger: RickN99: A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour.

So why do we have fewer full time, quality positions?

Is Walmart offering their workers full time positions, and the workers are refusing?

Or is Walmart only offering part time position for the specific purpose of keeping salaries low?


They are hiring workers for "part-time" positions but working them full-time so that they don t have to give them benefits or raises, and they can still brag about how well their full-time employees have it.
2012-11-22 10:44:13 PM
1 votes:

Mid_mo_mad_man: HotIgneous Intruder: All the pesky comparisons aside -- which actually serve well to show that the more things change the more they stay the same -- the Wallyworld serfs should at least be given benefits or raises enough to cover health insurance. This would take the social welfare burden off the government, in other words, the taxpayers, you and me.
I'll bet Walmart could get a hell of a group rate on employee insurance.

Hate to break to all you farkers but Wal-Mart does offer decent insurance plans and benefits
And never heard of any personal manger sending workers to sign up for welfare.
/ 14 year employee of Wally world


The Wal-Mart my sister works at has Medicaid applications in the HR office. She has been scheduled less than 40 hrs. TWICE in the past 11 months, and each of those were 32 hrs, yet she is denied benefits because she works a "part-time" position.

Go sell that bullsh*t somewhere else. We ain't buyin' it 'round here.
2012-11-22 07:37:51 PM
1 votes:
If the owners weren't dicks, we wouldn't need unions.

If unions weren't dicks, the owners couldn't so easily demonize them.
2012-11-22 07:19:38 PM
1 votes:

Therion: Remember 2008 and all of the calls for guillotines in the street, conpared to now when we're holding our breath and hoping that taxes on income over $250,000 can go up just a tiny little bit, please?.


As one of those households with incomes over $250,000 I don't necessarily mind contributing a little more than people who earn less than I do. I would just like a little something extra for my extra contribution. Not anything that cost money really, mostly just time, how about we all carry around our tax returns and when you come to a line the person who pays the most taxes gets to go to the front of the line? Or how about the more you pay in taxes the faster you can drive and people have to get out of the lane I want to drive in an let me go by?

And yes, I really am serious. If I have to pay more to make up for those who earn less than I should get perks for it, seems fair to me. And yes, I get nicer things for the larger income I receive but I worked for that larger income, through putting in more time, more education and more devotion to my career.
2012-11-22 02:40:14 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: FirstNationalBastard: Saw this in another thread, think it's appropriate to leave here...

It's essentially an extended bumper sticker argument. Tax policy was different enough that a direct comparison of marginal rates isn't an accurate representation. Nor is the social safety net as it asserted "weakened" today in comparison to the 1950s. If anything due to the Great Society programs of LBJ, our "social safety net" guarantees far more than the 1950s ever saw.

America is in a productivity funk.
Everyone wants wealth but they think shuffling around doing menial labor or work will bring it to them. Please tell me what skills in the bulk of the American workforce justify paying people 50$ an hour?

Everyone wants the pay that a skilled machinist or master electrician pulls in but few want to actually have the duty or build the skills for it.


I see you've been asleep for the past thirty-odd years, Rumplestiltskin. I suggest you review the welfare reform legislation of the past three decades and think about how that interacts with the radical redistribution of wealth and income since 1979 and get back to us.

I guess that this is what a "productivity funk" looks like

/Crack: You're smoking it.
//Just whose, I'm not certain.
2012-11-22 01:52:44 PM
1 votes:

Linux_Yes: .. el snippo...
and the owners think that is just fine, even though they are too stupid/short sited to see that they're undermining themselves and that they'd make more money in the long haul if our country had a prosperous thriving middle class.

Greed/selfishness blinds even those with the best eyesight.


Blindness? I don't see blindness at all - I see a careful and calculated strategy. You're undervaluing the notion of Globalization that needs to be in this discussion. The "owners" are quite willing to suck the West dry (not just the USA, but Europe, Australia and Canada) then move on to emerging markets like India and China. That is the general long term strategy that is being employed.

Part of that strategy is to get as rich as possible right now, so that you've got enough money to keep moving to where you get the lifestyle you want. Earn $100 Million right now and you can simply move from one country to another when the situation warrants. It also means a pretty nice retirement fund for yourself for when you finally do get out of the game, with interest building up from savings in transnational banks and investments in the new markets your former colleagues are now exploiting. By the time any of these owners will really need to deal with the consequences of their actions, they'll be dead of old age.
2012-11-22 01:43:36 PM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: In 1961, things weren't so different:
Mr. Frederick Donner, Chairman of the Board of the General Motors Corporation, received in salary and bonuses an amount of $2,922,000 for the period from 1956 through 1960. By contrast, the wages of an average GM hourly worker totalled $28,329, assuming that he worked 52 weeks each of these years, which the average GM worker did not. Mr. Donner received in this period more than 100 times the compensation of a GM worker.

From here.

Further, using the b>BLS inflation calculator, I see that the average wage of the GM worker in 1960 of $28,329 is the 2012 equivalent of earning $221,384.44.


That $28k is for working from 1956 to 1960, not just one year.
2012-11-22 01:39:10 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Debeo Summa Credo: False. Robert Reich is a liar and is lying to you.

Just misleading you (again). It's an apples and oranges headfake.

Union workers today make over $50 an hour, there just aren't as many union jobs.

The girl who worked at the dimestore in 1962 was not making today's equivalent of $50 an hour. More like $1.15 an hour (the then minimum wage), which would translate to about $6.00 an hour today. $8.81 is close to 50% more.


$1.15 in 1962 is worth $8.81 today
2012-11-22 12:42:28 PM
1 votes:
From the article:

But if retail workers got a raise, would consumers have to pay higher prices to make up for it? A new study by the think tank Demos reports that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers.

If it only costs 1% then why doesn't a major retailer do it? Oh that's right: because Reich is talking out of his ass again.

Retail jobs aren't a profession, it is staffed mainly by young people that will transition into higher paying jobs. Reich seems to want to desire a way to stop the world and have people be satisified working as a cashier all their life.
2012-11-22 12:11:08 PM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

A decade or so ago, a convention moved from one city, where it had been held for decades, to another, larger city a couple of states over. The new city had larger convention halls, more hotels, and was generally much better to hold a national convention in. The problem was, the new city was in a very union-friendly place, and everything was unionized.



You're talking about McCormick in Chicago. The shakedowns there are legendary.

A friend of mine who regularly displayed there always brought a stack of cash to grease the loading dock folks to make sure his shiat got unloaded early. Whoa unto thee who didn't do this and were left scrambling to get set up. The heavy handshake gets shiat done.
2012-11-22 11:59:37 AM
1 votes:

stiletto_the_wise: Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

[long story]...

So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.


Your amazing reading comprehension obviously missed the point where the unions were doing a shakedown saying the vendors had to use the union contractors, or risk intimidation and/or vandalization of their booths.
2012-11-22 11:02:02 AM
1 votes:
>>A half century ago America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour


A half century ago America's full-time workers at General Motors (not the entire US workforce) earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars, including health and pension benefits. Today, America's largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee, if you include the 400,000 part-time workers, earns $8.81 an hour. 

/replaced the parts you decided to remove
2012-11-22 10:59:52 AM
1 votes:

Silverstaff: The problem with Unions is that both sides are right.

Without Unions, we probably wouldn't have a minimum wage, or a 40 hour work week, or any one of zillions of other workers rights. If you can be part of a union with any actual teeth to it (I know a few people in "unions' which basically just collect dues and roll over when Management tells them to), it's a good deal for the worker.

On the other hand, unions pull some shady shiat.

Here's one big example that always stood out to me of union attitudes.

[long story]...


So, to summarize:

1. Exhibitors showed up
2. Union folks offered their services
3. Some companies hired them, others set their booths up themselves
4. The convention went on

Wow, unions are AWFUL.
2012-11-22 10:55:08 AM
1 votes:
I am watching Kidz Bop perform The Jackson 5's ABC at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and reading about a class conciousness that the United States has somehow always been inable to grasp.
 
I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.
2012-11-22 10:35:25 AM
1 votes:
its all about the shareholders (owners) now, babycakes.

they call that 'Freedom/Liberty'.

the Freedom to exploit this Nation's citizens and undermine our Democracy. bust those Unions, otherwise, the workers might start having some rights and might start being treated fairly.

this process began 30 years ago and we're seeing the fruits of that process now.

and we're seeing the middle class fade away into the poor class.

and the owners think that is just fine, even though they are too stupid/short sited to see that they're undermining themselves and that they'd make more money in the long haul if our country had a prosperous thriving middle class.

Greed/selfishness blinds even those with the best eyesight.
2012-11-22 10:12:49 AM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Weaver95: I just love how unified the message is from the corporate press - it's ALWAYS the unions fault when things go wrong. And that's even assuming you can get a story about unions on air in the first place. just look at this recent 'black friday' strike that's being organized against wal-mart. it's fairly easy to learn about via online discussions....but CNN? Fox News? if they mention it at all, it's to either laugh at it or shade the story to make the union organizers as shady people out to steal from 'honest hard working people'...

Yeah, and Hostess went under because the labor unions looted the place and left it with a billion dollars in debt, and the poor poor hedge funds had to clean up the mess out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Sickening.


if you ONLY followed the corporate news, then yes - that's what you'd end up believing. there has been VERY little analysis about how Hostess ended up in such deep fiscal trouble. when I point out the facts to my conservative friends I'm met first with flat out disbelief and denial, followed by accusations that i'm lying or distorting facts. when I prove my statements true with valid third party neutral sources, from that point the reactions diverge into 'oh yeah well you just don't understand finance' to 'I don't wanna talk about this stuff, lets go shoot zombies or something'.

I honestly don't know what to say at that point. Hostess was run into the ground by an elite group of investors who made bad decisions and looted the company then shifted the blame to the unions. were the unions completely blameless? well, i'm sure you could find SOMETHING they did wrong....but even if you wanted to go that route you STILL have to look at the CEOs and board of directors who kept giving themselves pay raises while forcing workers to take pay cuts and question their motives. Most of my conservative friends WILL NOT blame a CEO under any circumstances. I find that reluctance to be quite strange.
2012-11-22 09:06:42 AM
1 votes:

Snarfangel: "America's full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today's dollars--"? That made me furrow my brow, forcing me to read the article. Curse you, subby!

In the interest of accuracy, how about:

A half century ago, the biggest private employer (GM) offered the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $50 an hour in wages and benefits. Today, the biggest private employer (Walmart) offers an average of $8.81 in wages, with a third of the employees ineligible for benefits because they work less than 28 hours per week

/I know, it's more boring that way. "People making cars a half century ago earned a lot more than people in retail do today" is not much better, though.


I'm sure a hell of a lot of those retail workers would be delighted to be making cars instead. Oh but wait, we can't. Unions are to blame for high wages.

You see how it is, Tea-mitters?

High wages are to blame, not sh*tty management decisions, not vulture capitalists, not execs making 300 times what they used to, oh hell no.

Its those damn union guys again. Eff those guys.

Now back to work Thursday Retail .
2012-11-22 08:45:31 AM
1 votes:
What do you expect when the currency is devalued by overprinting? 50 years ago? I would settle for 5 years ago.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report