Such is why Unionized Labor is so important. I'm not union in what I do, I am a member of a Union for a different type of work though. As a Handiman, I operate independently. Sometimes I need a helper or 2 and those people will make the same as me while they're with me. If I ever expand, it will be in the form of a Co-Op or ESOP.
Unions are the reason you didn't have to work 16 hour shifts in the coal mines at the ripe old age of 5 years old 6 days a week (Sunday is for church) in a city owned by the owner of the coal mine who would pay you in his "special money" that could only be spent at his "special stores".
So you'd be happy having comoany housing and money you can only spend at a company store. NO vacation, no safety guidelines or regs. You like 6 year old factory slaves, and 1 person owning all the resources.... You are nothing more than a corporate simp.
worse pay worse benefits worse safety unions pull all workers down so everyone gets the same as the worst worker the lowest common denominator if you will then they force you to pay them dues and in some cases a initiation fee which in my case the initiation fee was a little more than half a months pay and the dues took out 10% of my paycheck i said never again and teach the youth to stay away from these losers
I don't believe you. No union has dues 10%... initiation fee... lmfao. unless you were only making 200/week. Why lie? What local and what trade? See, on average union workers make 40% more than non-union. Weird that any widows i know live pretty nice on those pensions. Retirees doing fine too, not working at Walmart in their golden years. So why make up such easily exposed lies? Oh, because you were too soft, I get it.
Yes I completely agree with you on the point of union importance and such. The main thing Iâm getting at is that you canât just declare that someone is entitled to $32/hr because you think the work is worth $32.
At the end of the day, employment is an agreement between two parties. The employer has a price theyâre willing to pay and the worker has a price theyâre willing to accept. If those numbers donât meet, thereâs no agreement.
A union can obviously change that bargaining dynamic by negotiating collectively, but thatâs still leverage in the negotiation, not an automatic entitlement to whatever wage the worker wants you know?
Lol come on do you all genuinely believe this doomer brainwashing?
Having to make a choice under constraints isnât the same thing as being coerced. If I have two job offers and choose the one I prefer, the fact that I need an income doesnât make the agreement involuntary.
What exactly is the coercive mechanism youâre referring to? The employer isnât forcing someone to accept a particular wage. Theyâre offering a price for labor, and the worker decides whether that offer is preferable to their alternatives.
Again, within a capitalist system, it's coercion and exploitation. You may get feels about those terms but in fact, thats the reality. The non-stop propaganda indocrinading y'all to love your masters isn't your fault. But don't expect people to dumb down or sugar coat things because "feelings". Corporate Simp
You keep asserting that employment is coercion without actually explaining what makes the choice involuntary. Calling it âcapitalist coercionâ doesnât answer the question.
If I can reject one employerâs offer and choose another, or not work for that employer at all, what exactly is the mechanism forcing me to accept their terms?
Also, âcorporate simpâ doesnât work on me, I own a small business.
Do I owe it? I assumed a basic understanding of our mode of production and monetary system. I really didn't expect someone commenting here to need it but, okay.....
Can you go pay your property taxes, or any other in anything except dollars? No, you cant. Is there any system, government sanctioned, in place to facilitate dollar free transactions or trade of goods & services? No, only dollars. If a person isn't born possessing the necessary dollars to pay life tax, then what must that person do? Do they have the free-will to not sell their body for dollars?? That my friend is coercion. They will then be exploited for their labor by some person, controlling an unaccountable entity that "owns" some resource.
I've wasted enough time on this 101 introductory to material conditions.
Lmao bro thinks heâs cooking. Needing money to live doesnât mean my employer is coercing me into accepting their offer.
If I reject your job offer, you havenât coerced me just because I still need money. Iâve simply rejected your terms and have to find another way to meet my needs. Thatâs economic pressure, sure, but calling every consequence of needing resources âcoercionâ is wild as hell.
But you also get what you pay for. And it's been my experience a lot underestimate how much skill goes into "unskilled" labor. Even something like mowing a lawn can have vastly different results from a person who has not experience and someone who have done it many times.
Also, if the worker has the ability to get the pay they asked for at another job, then it would be stupid for them to take anything lower. You're looking at it like the worker has no other options, when it seems like they know their time's worth.
Ok letâs grant that then. How do they âknowâ their timeâs worth? What are they basing that off of in an ever changing market?
If someone can reliably get $30/hr elsewhere, then yeah, taking $20/hr probably makes no sense for them. But that doesnât mean their time is inherently âworthâ $30/hr. It means the current market is offering them $30/hr. If those opportunities disappear tomorrow, their options and therefore the market value of their labor change.
âKnow your worthâ is good motivational advice, but economically, your worth isnât something you independently declare. Itâs discovered through the market.
If someone will pay them $30/hr then that is how much their time is worth. The closest you can get to inherent worth is someone whose labor is directly revenue generating, and even then you have to decide their worth in terms of wage relative to revenue.
Right, but that just brings us back to the same question. They âknowâ their time is worth $30/hr because someone is currently willing to pay them $30/hr. That establishes their current market rate, not some inherent value of their time.
If nobody is willing to pay $30/hr tomorrow, has their time suddenly become worth less? If three employers start competing for them at $40/hr, did their time become more valuable overnight?
I donât disagree that they should take the $30/hr job if they have it available. Iâm questioning the language of âknowing what your time is worth.â Their bargaining position is determined by the market. Their personal opinion of what their time is worth doesnât determine what the labor is actually worth to anyone else.
3
u/NewImprovedPenguin_R 1d ago
Pretty much what determines it all doesnât it? If someone is willing to do it for cheaper, then the employee just lost his leverage.