Mike Yohe-The fast food industry using organized labor today is just the tip of the iceberg of new organized labor and labor strikes that we will be looking at the next 10 years as the high inflation hit us.Man I hope you're right! But I'm not holding my breath.
I think you missed my point. If all of the workers compete for the available jobs then that is a free market economy just as when several vendors of a product have to compete for customers. When there is only one vendor or in the case f workers, only one union form which to hire workers then we are dealing with a monopoly not a true free market. If the workers dont get what they ask for they can withhold their labor and as there are no other sources of labor when a union is involved then they have created an artificial shortage of supply. I never said these people were asking for a handout but i do believe they are asking for more money then their skills deserve when many others with greater skills are working for far less ( college grads working as receptionists and even teachers in some places). If you choose to work in a menial job I don't think you are entitled to the same pay as others who have worked hard and sacrificed to make something better of themselves. As it happens the economy will resolve this issue. If one can get $15/hr flipping burgers we will simply see fewer people taking the time to become a medical assistant, paralegal, computer tech or whatever. If as you suggest the higher wage puts fast food places out of business then not only will these very same people lose their jobs but there will be less money in the local economy and all the fallout that comes from that.Macgyver: when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worthI'm not sure I agree. Isn't the essence of free market economics the idea that the relationship between supply and demand determines the value of a product? In order to assess the this it is natural that labor will have to try get the highest wage possible. Laborers can only do this by withholding labor, capitalists do it by raising prices until they exceed the amount individuals are willing to pay. When the value of the labor, or a product is exceeded the market will force an adjustment. If I hold stock in a company which overprices its product, I will experience a somewhat painful adjustment, as will the laborer who overprices their labor, but the only way to really establish the value of a good or service is to push that limit. How is that not a free market exchange?Macgyver: unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economyI'm not sure the Great Depression can be blamed on unionization, and during the 1950s and 60s a large percentage of laborers were union members at a time when the economy was very stable and productive. An argument can be made that when labor receives a fair wage money circulates more effectively and economic stagnation is prevented. And, I think it's important to remember that people who are involved in unions are as much a part of our government as anyone else, they are not some separate entity asking for a handout. But, I recognize that professional, white collar workers are caught in the middle. They are unable to organize in the way that labor can and I believe that is somewhat unjust. Doctors especially fall into a class of professional who are felt to provide an essential service, one that many feel should be available to all individuals, and I can see how that makes pricing medical care very complex. At root we seem to have some distrust of a totally free market, so we socialize many jobs that are seen as essential, like the military, the police, fire department and to a great degree the jobs which maintain the transportation infrastructure. If we, as a society, feel that access to medicine is similarly essential perhaps we should create a similar structure for it's practitioners. I'm not saying that physicians are improperly valued, but the value of the service they provide may be as difficult to value as the skills and risks incurred by a fireman who can save an infant in the upper story of a burning building. On the subject of minimum wage. I believe deeply that if an individual works at a reasonable pace, to the best of their ability and opportunity, for 40 hours a week they should receive a large enough wage to enable them, and a reasonable number of offspring, access to decent food and housing, basic healthcare, education and some slight opportunity to better themselves. I don't think that's possible for a person working their tail off all day in a hot, greasy hamburger joint and receiving the current minimum wage. If paying workers fairly prices a service out of the market that is the nature of a free market. If we insist on having access to a product and will not pay the laborers creating it a living wage, that isn't a job, it is slavery, and as a society we should be ashamed.
Vyaz you have your prejudices and perhaps I have mine but I am not calling the people involved in this dispute "lowly fast food workers" nor do I think of them that way. There are lots of people who work in those positions who are hard working, good, intelligent people, but if you chose a job like this and do nothing to better yourself I am not sure you have much to complain about. The fact is that Unions do force employers to pay more than market value for services by creating a labor monopoly and then withholding services. They don;t sit down nicely and agree to a contract as you say. Both parties have a gun to their head and depending on the situation one side or the other will have greater leverage but a strong union can easily acquire more for their services than they are worth by threatening to cause financial ruin for the empoyer I have no desire to become a police officer but "complaining" about an unjust system is how we improve things. Our system has allowed the police union in our county to strong arm the government into paying far more for their services than they are worth. the solution isn't for everyone to become a police officer. The benefits and salary are so out of line that it has become extremely competitive for anyone who wants the job. Clearly we dont need our citizens to al become cops. What we need is a system that tips the balance more in favor of the tax payers so the salary of police officers are more in line with what people in the private sector get paid. Its not a complaint. Clearly omnipotent employers are not a good thing and are harmful to workers but this particular example is a case unrestrained unions can be problematic as well. I am not trying to say that unions are all bad but neither are they harmless. We have to always strive to create a reasonable balance between labor and employer.McGeyver-Strictly speaking when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worth.Nobody forces anybody. They sit down and come to an agreement, then they make a contract like nice people do. It is free-market economy. All the employees get together and incorporate their labor. Like a big company. And they sell their labor to the other company. And there are United States laws that have to be followed in the organization of this "company"(union) and laws concerning the other company's dealing with that union. So it's also perfectly legal. It's all in the Dept. Of Labor's website.Its always a difficult balance between giving employees/unions too much power versus businesses getting too much power. If businesses have too much power they may take advantage of employees but unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economy.:lol:The police unions in our area have managed to ratchet up salaries for police officers so that they make far more in salary and benefits than most of the people who they are sworn to protect.Go take the police test then. Don't you know about upward mobility? Look for the job with more pay and go for it. No, you want the new American way...complain about what the other guy is making, and bring everyone down with ya. Instead of aspiring to improve your lot with the tools society offers. Misery loves company!!In response to your other comment, the people who are protesting for the right to unionize ARE asking for our help since we are the government and its the government that will decide if they are going to get the right to unionize.They aren't protesting for the right to organize. They already have that right. I'm sure some suitable large Unions are looking into the matter as we speak. The government doesn't decide anything accept in court to see if any laws were or are being violated.The whole purpose of their protest is to gain sympathy from the public and that's fine but as their audience we need to evaluate the strengths of their argument. I personally don't find their case to be a strong one when they are asking for such high wages for a job that requires no skill at all.Yeah, I get it. Your a Doctor and they are just lowly fast food workers who should know their place.
I think a key point that macgyver is trying to reiterate is that labor unions have just as much potential to harm the economy as businesses do. There are valid issues here being brought up on both sides, but we at least should be taking this point into account.
The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business. Business with unions end up with more employee involvement. An example would be the aerospace industry. About half the companies are unionize and the others are not. In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins.
Strong unions can destroy a company.
Weak unions can work against the employee and for the company.
Unions use to be controlled by the workers, not so today, they are controlled by groups of lawyers.
The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business. Business with unions end up with more employee involvement. An example would be the aerospace industry. About half the companies are unionize and the others are not. In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins. Strong unions can destroy a company. Weak unions can work against the employee and for the company. Unions use to be controlled by the workers, not so today, they are controlled by groups of lawyers.Exactly.
Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don’t do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their “product.” Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition’s products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, “That’s business.” “What’s good for business is good for the country.” They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black.
With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity?
Lois
Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don't do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their "product." Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition's products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, "That's business." "What's good for business is good for the country." They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black. With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? LoisWhat? A massive portion of this country attacks the "evil" business owner on a regular basis, including politicians and media.
All workers are unionized or covered by laws that were created by unions to some level by state and federal laws that deal with hours, overtime, unemployment, safety in the work place, working environment, safety clothing, breathing atmosphere, lighting, sexual atmosphere, discrimination, age limits, pregnancy, days worked before needing to pay the employee.
Items not covered are vacation, double time pay, holiday pay, retirement, severance pay, seniority and rate of pay over minimum wage unless it is Federal or State then prevailing wage laws go into effect.
So all workers are a little bit unionized by the government.
On the subject of minimum wage. I believe deeply that if an individual works at a reasonable pace, to the best of their ability and opportunity, for 40 hours a week they should receive a large enough wage to enable them, and a reasonable number of offspring, access to decent food and housing, basic healthcare, education and some slight opportunity to better themselves.What constitutes a reasonable number of offspring? What constitutes decent food and housing? What constitutes a slight opportunity to better themselves?
Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don't do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their "product." Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition's products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, "That's business." "What's good for business is good for the country." They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black. With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? J LoisWhat? A massive portion of this country attacks the "evil" business owner on a regular basis, including politicians and media. But only labor is demonized. At one point in this country's history, labor unions were claimed to be communistic. Business was never demonized on such a large scale. Unions were denigrated for doing nothing more than what businesses were doing--trying to get the best price for their product. But that, of course, was communism because it helped the common man. Anythingbhat helped the downtrodden was considered communistic and socialis and ot was only right to crush it. Workers were supposed to tuglon their forelocks and be grateful for getting any kind of wages and working under the worst conditions. They were expected to work for long hours, with few breaks, under horrendous conditions. If they were injured or died on te job that was their hard luck. If they complained they were demonized. It was unions who pushed for a 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safety, health insurance, paid vacations and an end to child labor, while business owners fought tooth and nail against all of those things. Meanwhie they often had to suffer lockouts and firings by employers who refused to negotiate, and worse. Read up on the history of inhuman business practices and the birth of unions. It's not a pretty picture. Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-33 (1966) Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965) Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Tine. John L. Lewis: A Biography (1986) Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965) Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915-1945 (1991) Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993) Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920-1935 (1994) Greene, Julie . Pure and Simple Politics: The American Federation of Labor and Political Activism, 1881-1917 (1998) Hooker, Clarence. Life in the Shadows of the Crystal Palace, 1910-1927: Ford Workers in the Model T Era (1997) Laslett, John H. M. Labor and the Left: A Study of Socialist and Radical Influences in the American Labor Movement, 1881-1924 (1970) Karson, Marc. American Labor Unions and Politics, 1900-1918 (1958) McCartin, Joseph A. ’Labor's Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations, 1912-1921 (1997) Mandel, Bernard. Samuel Gompers: A Biography (1963) Meyer, Stephen. The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921 (1981) Mink, Gwendolyn. Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875-1920 (1986) Orth, Samuel P. The Armies of Labor: A Chronicle of the Organized Wage-Earners (1919) short overview Quint, Howard H. The Forging of American Socialism: Origins of the Modern Movement (1964) Warne, Colston E. ed. The Steel Strike of 1919 (1963), primary and secondary documents Zieger, Robert. Republicans and Labor, 1919-1929. (1969) Bernstein, Irving. Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933-1941 (1970) Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945-1968 (1995) Campbell, D'Ann. "Sisterhood versus the Brotherhoods: Women in Unions" Women at War With America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era (1984). Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Time John L. Lewis (1986). Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915-1945 (1991), social history Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993). Galenson, Walter. The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement, 1935-1941 (1960) Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920-1935 (1994) Jensen, Richard J. "The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19 (1989) p. 553-83 Kennedy, David M. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. (1999) recent narrative. Lichtenstein, Nelson. Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II (2003) Lichtenstein, Nelson. The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995) Miller, Sally M., and Daniel A. Cornford eds. American Labor in the Era of World War II (1995), essays by historians, mostly on California Preis, Art. Labor's Giant Step (1964) Seidman; Joel. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen: The Internal Political Life of a National Union (1962) Vittoz, Stanley. New Deal Labor Policy and the American Industrial Economy (1987) Zieger, Robert H. The CIO, 1935-1955 (1995)
Vyaz you have your prejudices and perhaps I have mine but I am not calling the people involved in this dispute "lowly fast food workers" nor do I think of them that way. There are lots of people who work in those positions who are hard working, good, intelligent people,Most are not, though. This is the problem.
All workers are unionized or covered by laws that were created by unions to some level by state and federal laws that deal with hours, overtime, unemployment, safety in the work place, working environment, safety clothing, breathing atmosphere, lighting, sexual atmosphere, discrimination, age limits, pregnancy, days worked before needing to pay the employee. Items not covered are vacation, double time pay, holiday pay, retirement, severance pay, seniority and rate of pay over minimum wage unless it is Federal or State then prevailing wage laws go into effect. So all workers are a little bit unionized by the government.The government got involved only after unions got a foothold and pushed for laws to protect workers. If it hadn't been for unions those laws would never have been passed and working conditions would be similar to what they were in the 19th century. All workers have reaped the advantages created by unions, even those who never belonged to a union, even you. Lois
But only labor is demonized. At one pointbin this country's history, labor unions were claimed to e communistic. business was never demonized on such a large scale. Unions were denigrated for doing nothing more than what businesses were doing--tringbto get the best price for their product. But that, of course, was communism because it helped the common man. Anythingbhat helped the downtrodden was considered communistic and socialis and ot was only right to crush it. Worers were supposed to pull onntheir forelocks and be grateful for getting any kind of wages and working under the worst conditions. They were expected to work for long hours, with few breaks, under horrendous conditions. If they were injured or died on te job that was their hard luck. If they complained they were demonized. It was unions who pushed for a 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safety, health insurance, paid vacations and an end to child labor, while business owners fought tooth and nail against all of those things. Meanwhie they often had to suffer lockouts and firings by employers who refused to negotiate, and worse. Read up on the history of inhuman business practices and the birth of unions. It's not a pretty picture.No, labor is not the only one that is demonized. Where have you been for the last several years? The left blames everything that this economy is dealing with on business owners. Business owners get demonized on a regular basis. And whether or not it was used as a pejorative term, asking the government to intervene in worker/owner disputes IS socialistic. Many people are perfectly fine with that term, especially socialists. And yes yes yes, I already know about the many benefits that have come from labor union involvement. Nobody here is saying that labor unions are bad. What people have consistently stated is that large and disproportionately powerful unions can actually be just as detrimental as large and disproportionately powerful businesses. What people do not understand is that forcing fast food restaurants to raise pay significantly will have unintended consequences, and many of the same people advocating for this are going to be the ones who ultimately lose out.
Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time. This is a given. Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike). But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs, you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don't do that, only labor actions. Labor is a commodity like any other commodity. Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products. But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their "product." Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition's products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, "That's business." "What's good for business is good for the country." They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal. The pot calls the kettle black. With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras. Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor. Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? LoisIt's different with fast food though, because fast food labor is frankly, worthless; it's the lowest of the low.
mid atlantic, I believe that the debate about what constitutes a fair, “living wage” could start a whole new thread. I don’t have a simple criteria, but, for me, a simple test is to try to imagine having a neighbor, friendly regular sort of person, hard working, decent, with a child or two but not very able or intelligent . If your neighbor works a full time job, how should they be able to function in your community? I know it’s not a very good test, you might be completely comfortable walking past uneducated, malnourished children, or sharing public facilities with an individual with drug resistant TB, guarding your home vigilantly from the starving masses, or perhaps, you can imagine some more efficacious final solution. And I, of course, might prefer giving them the opportunity to become some fat, lazy, parasite, irresponsibly popping out children, able to live in a mansion, drive a Jaguar and spend their days eating bob-bons and doing meth, sitting around their Olympic sized pool. But seriously, I’d bet we could pretty easily come to a pretty realistic agreement on what a decent living wage really is.
I am not uncritical of labor unions. In my limited experience, unions sometimes seem to forget that they are providing a service. Unions which tolerate poor performance from their workers are not providing the service they claim to be able to deliver and may be as dishonest as any other form of commerce. Sometimes unions serve as a means to prevent competent workers access to good jobs. Good union leadership should bargain for the highest realistic wage possible, (that may entail asking for more than they expect to receive), and guarantee a high standard of labor by providing trained employees and policing their own ranks.
Jeciron
… a simple test is to try to imagine having a neighbor, friendly regular sort of person, hard working, decent, with a child or two but not very able or intelligent . If your neighbor works a full time job, how should they be able to function in your community?
In the system built by our government, your neighbor would be an idiot to be working a full time job at minimum wage with a kid or two. There is no way he could afford any sort of health care for his kids. Most people in that situation today are on a relief program. And in some states they can stay on the relief program while working a part time minimum wage job.
What nobody has said yet, is in the food industry in most states where there are benefit laws that go into affect for full time workers, so most of the food industry will work a majority of the people at fast food places 20/hrs per week or less because of these laws. Even the U.S. Post Office does this in states with required benefits for full time workers.
What nobody has said yet, is in the food industry in most states where there are benefit laws that go into affect for full time workers, so most of the food industry will work a majority of the people at fast food places 20/hrs per week or less because of these laws. Even the U.S. Post Office does this in states with required benefits for full time workers.This is also a standard ploy for wholesale companies such as Walmart and its affiliate Sams Club. Often employees are allowed only 28-39 hours a week to avoid providing them benefits of any kind. They also have no sick leave nor vacation leave. Many underemployed workers are forced to seek a second part time job or ask for public assistance. This is a standard for restaurant workers who now face a further cut back in hours to "compensate" for Obama Care. There are presently over ten million workers currently employeed in the business with an average annual salary of below $20,000 with very little chance of advancement. Many fast food businesses force them out after six months of employment in order to purge the disgruntled and bored who wonder from restaurant to restaurant working menial, thankless jobs with no incentive to improve either the food or the service. Incidentally, they are divided into front of the house ( greeters and servers) and back of the house ( cooks, fry and broil, and cleaners, dish tank operaters). Those in the front make less than three dollars an hour and rely on gratuity to make up the difference, sometimes above but often below the minimum while the back are paid minimum wage. This is life for the restaurant worker, ten million American workers. Here's a breakdown of wages and salaries: http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/restaurant-equipment-supply-marketing-articles/restaurant-management-and-operations/employee-wages-and-benefits/c28023.aspx And it hasn't changed for twenty years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/minimum-wage-restaurant-workers_n_1515916.html Thank you Herman Caine. Lastly, believe in the power of a union, well organized and regulated with the ability to bring the corporate bosses to the bargaining table. it is the only protection and vehicle for advancement open to a collective body of workers and has been shown in the past to enable the workers both skilled and nonskilled to make a decent living for themselves and their families. Unions forced an end to child labor, guaranteed a 40 hour work week with extra pay for overtime, safer working conditions, and pensions to name a few. I fully recognize the excesses of some union organizations e.g. The Teamsters but the abuses by industrialists and corporate bosses far outway them. A little research on the Guilded Age in America will illustrate my point. Organizing a restaurant union will improve their wages and earn them the benefits they need. The restaurant industry pulls in over $600 billion annually and IMO can afford to share a pittance of the profits with their workers. Cap't Jack
Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs,...
But only labor is demonized. At one pointbin this country's history, labor unions were claimed to e communistic. business was never demonized on such a large scale. Unions were denigrated for doing nothing more than what businesses were doing--tringbto get the best price for their product. But that, of course, was communism because it helped the common man. Anythingbhat helped the downtrodden was considered communistic and socialis and ot was only right to crush it. Worers were supposed to pull onntheir forelocks and be grateful for getting any kind of wages and working under the worst conditions. They were expected to work for long hours, with few breaks, under horrendous conditions. If they were injured or died on te job that was their hard luck. If they complained they were demonized. It was unions who pushed for a 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safety, health insurance, paid vacations and an end to child labor, while business owners fought tooth and nail against all of those things. Meanwhie they often had to suffer lockouts and firings by employers who refused to negotiate, and worse. Read up on the history of inhuman business practices and the birth of unions. It's not a pretty picture.No, labor is not the only one that is demonized. Where have you been for the last several years? The left blames everything that this economy is dealing with on business owners. Business owners get demonized on a regular basis. And whether or not it was used as a pejorative term, asking the government to intervene in worker/owner disputes IS socialistic. Many people are perfectly fine with that term, especially socialists. And yes yes yes, I already know about the many benefits that have come from labor union involvement. Nobody here is saying that labor unions are bad. What people have consistently stated is that large and disproportionately powerful unions can actually be just as detrimental as large and disproportionately powerful businesses. What people do not understand is that forcing fast food restaurants to raise pay significantly will have unintended consequences, and many of the same people advocating for this are going to be the ones who ultimately lose out. Business owners have used that argument since unions were in their infancy. It hasn't happened yet.