posted on November 3, 2002 07:49:00 AM new "There's another new company that wanted to be union free so they offered unheard of benefits that were very tempting and more than made up for the lower wage."
But all of these "unheard of benefits" would not have been provided without the union's influence in the area. The new company that you mention will either take care of it's employees or go out of business.
posted on November 3, 2002 09:07:09 AM new
They surely can and as a result, they could effectively bargain for better wages. Then, your new company would withdraw those "unheard of benefits".
The point is that your new company has to compete with good working conditions and standards established throughout history by labor unions.
Helen
I have to go out...Borillar will probably be back to discuss this with you. I feel very strongly in favor of labor unions. My dad was in charge of organizing for CWA-CIO in the United States and Canada. He worked long and hard and was an honest, good man.
I don't want to wind up calling you a blockhead. LOL! Take it easy.
posted on November 3, 2002 10:45:06 AM new
It is evident to me that quickdraw will not answer my questions that I've taken the time to carefully phrase and to pose. Therefore, further discussion is fruitless and my mind remains unchanged on the issue.
posted on November 3, 2002 10:50:30 AM new
One big question was: WOuld a company lower its wages to $2.00 an hours if the miminum wage were abolished. (Or something to that effect)
Answer: A resounding YES!!!! In fact, they do it right now, in this country. An undocumented immigrant(illegal alien) is immediately hired at well below the miminum wage. Why? Because a company can and WILL! Who is the immigrant going to complain to?
Would they do it to American Workers if they could?
Answer: A resounding YES!!! As Chris Rock put it: Miminum Wage means the boss can not pay you any less. They would if they could, but they CAN'T!! Why do waiters and waitresses get paid less than miminum wage? Simply because the company can and does."THEY" say waiters/waitresses make it up in tips, but waiters/waitresses know better. Tips were ORIGINALLY designed as a reward for better than average service, NOT a neccesity to feed yourself. "THEY" say it will make the cost of meals prohibitively expensive, but it would only raise the cost about a nickel. I think I could handle that...
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 3, 2002 03:09:23 PM new
"They surely can and as a result, they could effectively bargain for better wages. Then, your new company would withdraw those "unheard of benefits".
The point is that your new company has to compete with good working conditions and standards established throughout history by labor unions."
That was my point, how much more clear do I have to be?
"I don't want to wind up calling you a blockhead. LOL!"
Considering you're the only one to come in here and make no sense, I am glad to see the only blockhead leave.
"It is evident to me that quickdraw will not answer my questions that I've taken the time to carefully phrase and to pose."
Are you an airhead? I'm done discussing this with blockheads anmd airheads.
"YES!!!! In fact, they do it right now, in this country. An undocumented immigrant(illegal alien) is immediately hired at well below the miminum wage. Why? Because a company can and WILL! Who is the immigrant going to complain to?"
Wow, great point, they do it to undocumented workers who are unskilled. My point was never they wopuldn't do it, but they would do it with unskilled workers unemployabe at minimum law wages. So these companies are helpng these unemplyable (at minimum wage) with earning a wage, what's wrong with that?
"Why do waiters and waitresses get paid less than miminum wage?" Because they earn tips that drive their earnings higher.
"THEY" say waiters/waitresses make it up in tips, but waiters/waitresses know better."
You're saying they don't make tips, or the tips don't drive it higher than minimum wage? I don't know a single waiter/waitres that makes below $8/hr on a bad night.
"THEY" say it will make the cost of meals prohibitively expensive, but it would only raise the cost about a nickel. I think I could handle that."
More realistically 15¢-30¢. It's like what Ben & Jerries says, "are you willing to pay an extra 50¢ for an ice cream cone so the workers can have a livable wage?"
But I can a problem with our math. Say a waiter gets 15% tips for 10 tables an hour average for a $25 bill. Minus tipping bartender etc. That's $3.02x 10= $30.20 hr. $30.25 x 5 (Dinner shift)= $151.25.
The restaurant would need to tack on $1.00 per meal. It doesn't sound like a lot but it would probably drive a lot of customers away, not just in the higher price but the smaller portions for the meal.
posted on November 5, 2002 09:38:53 AM new
How many waiter/waitresses do you know, who after 20 years actually have anything saved up??? Oh, I know, you have HEARD of hundreds except you don't know who they are...
YES, it would only cost a nickel to raise them to minimum wage. The portions wouldn't be any smaller because if you had ANY, I mean ANY, experience in the food/resturant industry, FOOD IS CHEAP! The expense comes mainly from the service, waiters, waitresses, chefs, cooks, busboys, dishwashers, housecleaners, etc.... In amongst that is rent, maintenance, and other related expenses. The least expensive is the food. And resturarnts would make MORE money if they lowered their portion sizes, people would be more apt to order a dessert. At present, there seems to be a contest on who can serve the largest portion. Most plates go back half eaten and wasted.
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 5, 2002 10:42:30 AM new
>It's like what Ben & Jerries says, "are you willing to pay an extra 50¢ for an ice cream cone so the workers can have a livable wage?"
>>IF<< that 50¢ was guaranteed to go to the workers, I wouldn't mind. IMO, it's much cheaper to pay more to give people a living wage than it is to pay out taxes and to give them a saftey net. Not that I have anything against a public safety net, but it just groks to me that this would come out a lot better for everybody.
posted on November 5, 2002 11:24:03 AM new
Food is cheap, yes. Labor is expensive, yes. What was your point again? Labor is expensive so let's raise labor costs higher? Didn't all the airlines try that already and how many of those workers have been layed off? Lets see United and Delta announced another 3000 layed off. But here's Southwest with the lowest labor costs and they are the only airline with a profit and no layoffs.
Wow, you amaze me with your intelligence. I guess job security means little to you.
How do you know more people will order dessert if they get smaller portions? Restaurants are supposed to think that customers will fork over $10.00 more? You are so clueless.
posted on November 5, 2002 11:41:52 AM new
A lot of businesses would like to raise prices to pay for labor but customers generally balk at it. McDonalds tried it and they got so many complaints they went back to their old pricing.
Walmart is notorius for being cheap with labor, but how do you think they keep the prices so low? Ditto with SouthWest Airlines.
These poor workers are sacrficing for cheap buyers. But do you see the dillemma? Raise prices=inflation. Workers get more, buy the same. The problem isn't solved by raising prices. Therefore the only way to make the system work is for businesses to make less profit and pay the workers more. Ok, so it will only mean more bankrupsties. It will mean less investment; less companies buying out weaker companies. Less jobs. Now you just created higher unemployment. Great idea. Lets go with that just so workers can get paid more.
The fact is, leave the free market alone, it is designed to be efficient and no government tinkering will ever have a positive effect.
Your theories have been proven false. More people in the workforce hasn't caused wages to drop. Raising wages artificially has caused more unemployed.
That's all I care to say. If you want to be hardheaded, live with your errors and don't come whining to me, and for god's sake, when more workers get layed-off, admit to your mistake. Don't cry for higher taxes. Find out what mistakes you made and correct them.
