Can the BB Practice Facility Be Built in 12 Months ?

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

I haven't used the word "market" once. And I haven't "regurgitated" a theory. And if you think there are a lot of anti union profs running around RBS, you've clearly never stepped foot in the place.

I've run businesses--inside and outside union shops. I could count on one FINGER an employee from the union shop that I would have hired after that experience. All the union shop employees added to the value chain was a constant, incessant level of complaining, lethargy and overall "I don't give a shit and there is nothing you can do about it" attitude. And the cost of their ARTIFICIALLY inflated wage was passed on to the customer.

Bringing us back full circle AGAIN. Why should a guy dunking french fries in a union shop hotel, be paid 19 bucks an hour?

For the first two comments all I can do it is:

For the last question...if two entities agree to pay a guy dunking French fries $19/hour...why not? The fact is most places will not pay a guy dunking a French fry $19/hour...but maybe some will. And if a union can get a private company to do such a thing, then good for them. There is nothing artificial about two private entities agreeing to a binding contract.

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

 

[ru66]

like I said--union and union employers are using their influence to get facility built --I know this as fact--stop bitching about them because they are our allies

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by ru66:

like I said--union and union employers are using their influence to get facility built --I know this as fact--stop bitching about them because they are our allies

Like a conversation on a message board will affect whether the facility gets built.

 

[ru66]

no--but have the sense to recognize who will make a difference for RU and who has influence in NJ

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by BeKnighted:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:
Your contention that I don't understand economics doesn't answer the question. Why should a person who has invested very little in their skill development (a truck driver at UPS only needs a HS diploma and a CDL) be paid north of $25 bucks an hour plus benefits? All in, that is a $65,000+ a year job. Do you think that job would be filled at $17 an hour? plus a contribution to someone's health care? That $8 bucks an hour is a cost that is borne by someone, no? Who bears them? Do those costs contribute to the overall expensive lifestyle that these unionized jobs are hoping to mitigate? My original point in the thread is that unions are from a bygone era and create artificial--yes, ARTIFICIAL--wage pressures.


Despite never met a Strawman he wouldn't use NIRH's contentions, things like OSHA and other workplace safety regulations wouldn't disappear absent organized labor. They are baked into the cake now. Would there be pressure to roll them back? Sure. But those pressures currently exist and usually get nowhere. Nobody is calling for a construction industry like Qatars (to borrow the example used above). We've seen bargaining power of organized labor reduced to basically zero anyway. The idea that they are holding employers feet to the fire over workplace safety issues is silly talk.

And study after study after study has shown that people want to be compensated in more than just salary or hourly wage. Take the grocery industry as an example. Wegmans and Whole Foods both routinely find themselves on Top Companies to Work For lists. Neither are unions shops (Wegmans' distribution is, but not the store employees). Both pay well, but not industry leading. Both have the lowest turnover. Both have profit sharing. Both have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to training and internal development. Both promote extensively from within. WF rewards with stock options. Both create wealth and opportunity for high performers, that is worth infinitely more than the buck an hour less they pay a starting cashier than Shop Rite (union shop). Employees are flocking to the firms that give them opportunity to outperform, be compensated for that, be trained and developed.

So we've come full circle. Why should the 16 year old kid at Shop Rite bagging my groceries be unionized? And who bears the cost for his ARTIFICIALLY higher wage vs the 16 year old kid with the same exact skill set at Wegmans (I would successfully argue that the Wegmans employee actually has a superior skill set)?

You could ask the same question about the people who provide capital - why should they get anything more than a minimal return on it? From an economics perspective, capital is not inherently superior to labor, and is not inherently entitled to a bigger share of the revenue produced by an economic enterprise than labor. In a modern economy, where we're not all yeoman farmers or blacksmiths, capital has a huge advantage over labor in the absence of unions because it is allowed to create large enterprises that have some level of market power; unions address that imbalance.

Also, it's inaccurate to suggest that the $8 differential you posit is a loss in terms of economic welfare. In a lot of cases, it's largely a transfer payment from capital to labor, but in practice low-end employees spend more of the money they receive than the shareholders do, so there are multiplier effects on the rest of the economy - more clothing, cars and iPhones purchased, etc. (As a footnote, I'm not sure why I should think it's terrible to pay someone $65,000 a year.)

Also, while I'd like to believe that various workplace protections like OSHA and workers' comp are safe, recent history suggests otherwise. Particularly for jobs involving physical labor, unions offer a layer of protection that the law does not always provide.

You mean the modern economy in which less than 11% of the workforce is unionized? At firms like Google, Apple, Tesla, Amazon, Facebook and Ebay? oh wait...

I don't think it's "terrible" to pay anyone anything. Whatever you can earn, in a union or non-union environment, is fine with me. I'm putting forth an argument that counters the idea that we NEED unions because EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE. It seems that one way, maybe not the only way, to address the "problem" is to wonder WHY EVERYTHING IS SO EXPENSIVE?

Is a university education a pathway to the middle class? If you believe the answer is yes, have you ever wondered how much of a single tuition dollar goes into a unionized endeavor? Faculty, staff, construction buildings, campus police, the fuel that powers the physical plant, the truck driver that delivers the food to the student center, the driver who delivers the text books?

I'm not saying that capital is inherently "better." Although, as someone who had to make a payroll every week and whose house was the asset underpinning the loan to do it, I would argue that there is a risk premium that accounts for returns above a "minimum" level.

1. How much of the modern economy is actually modern - i.e. how many of it is high tech workers doing high tech things - not alot. Those five companies you list probably make up less than 1% of hte US workforce, and for Amazon and in the future Tesla, alot of their employees will be blue collar (warehouse and factory workers, respectively.) Apple has lots of manufacturing employees or contractors. In China, where Im sure they would love the ability to bargain for better working conditions and wages.

You work restaurants. You know full well that most of your employees are replaceable and need a steady income to stay afloat (i.e. their is extra incentive to stay employed when your car might get repoed if you are out of work for a month.) You dont think that gives you alot of leverage in how you treat and pay them?

2. I told you why everything is so expensive. Which are the right to work states? There is some shadow of heavy unionization, but mostly, things are expensive where land is relatively plentiful and easy to build on.

 

[TonyLieske]

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

You dropped your academic credentials, not me.

I didn't question whether you went to Rutgers. I made a flippant comment, in regards to your flippant comment that I was "regurgitating theories" I learned in school, suggesting that there aren't many, if any, anti-union professors at RBS. So any theories I may be regurgitating, are my own.

And my capital is just as mobile as your labor (and of course you will disagree with that). So I can move to the next vacant land down the street and not operate in the Westin. However, somebody will operate in the Westin. And that somebody does so accepting that there is no negotiation to be had. The workers in the hotel are in the union. Period. Their inflated wages are passed along to SOMEONE. Period. Either the firm or the customer or both. To pretend they are paying that wage willingly and as a result of a negotiation is dumb. And you know it.

You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

And Der, if you argue they are easily replaceable, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know how many times your average kitchen turns over this time a year? When the landscaping trucks start rolling? There are nuances to this market that you have no idea about. I don't exert downward pressure on wages because it is against my best interest to constantly look for, hire, train and retain new employees. Just like Google--but far less zeros. Sure, any one back of the house employee is relatively easy to replace. However, that could never hope to explain mistreating a staff of 25-40--which is what we're talking about. I'm gonna constantly be on the hunt for new employees over .50-1.00 an hour? Why on earth would I do that?

And you know I could list about 250 other companies, without really trying, who treat their employees just like the tech companies i listed do. I could move to big pharma, financial services, bio-tech, engineering, big consulting, professional services so on and so forth.

Maybe Apple's contract employees would like to organize. And maybe you would like to pay $1,300 for an IPhone. What happens in other countries wasn't really the focus of the conversation.

 

[ru66]

can't stand people who always have to argue the evils of unions as if all are bad--most of them work in some management position for organizations as likely to srew them as quickly as they would their houly workers--I

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

You dropped your academic credentials, not me.

I didn't question whether you went to Rutgers. I made a flippant comment, in regards to your flippant comment that I was "regurgitating theories" I learned in school, suggesting that there aren't many, if any, anti-union professors at RBS. So any theories I may be regurgitating, are my own.

And my capital is just as mobile as your labor (and of course you will disagree with that). So I can move to the next vacant land down the street and not operate in the Westin. However, somebody will operate in the Westin. And that somebody does so accepting that there is no negotiation to be had. The workers in the hotel are in the union. Period. Their inflated wages are passed along to SOMEONE. Period. Either the firm or the customer or both. To pretend they are paying that wage willingly and as a result of a negotiation is dumb. And you know it.

You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

And Der, if you argue they are easily replaceable, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know how many times your average kitchen turns over this time a year? When the landscaping trucks start rolling? There are nuances to this market that you have no idea about. I don't exert downward pressure on wages because it is against my best interest to constantly look for, hire, train and retain new employees. Just like Google--but far less zeros. Sure, any one back of the house employee is relatively easy to replace. However, that could never hope to explain mistreating a staff of 25-40--which is what we're talking about. I'm gonna constantly be on the hunt for new employees over .50-1.00 an hour? Why on earth would I do that?

And you know I could list about 250 other companies, without really trying, who treat their employees just like the tech companies i listed do. I could move to big pharma, financial services, bio-tech, engineering, big consulting, professional services so on and so forth.

Maybe Apple's contract employees would like to organize. And maybe you would like to pay $1,300 for an IPhone. What happens in other countries wasn't really the focus of the conversation.

I have said this before but you should have had a MOS that would have put you in JAG, Harm. LOL


.
This post was edited on 4/10 2:51 PM by e5fdny

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

You dropped your academic credentials, not me.

I didn't question whether you went to Rutgers. I made a flippant comment, in regards to your flippant comment that I was "regurgitating theories" I learned in school, suggesting that there aren't many, if any, anti-union professors at RBS. So any theories I may be regurgitating, are my own.

And my capital is just as mobile as your labor (and of course you will disagree with that). So I can move to the next vacant land down the street and not operate in the Westin. However, somebody will operate in the Westin. And that somebody does so accepting that there is no negotiation to be had. The workers in the hotel are in the union. Period. Their inflated wages are passed along to SOMEONE. Period. Either the firm or the customer or both. To pretend they are paying that wage willingly and as a result of a negotiation is dumb. And you know it.

You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

And Der, if you argue they are easily replaceable, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know how many times your average kitchen turns over this time a year? When the landscaping trucks start rolling? There are nuances to this market that you have no idea about. I don't exert downward pressure on wages because it is against my best interest to constantly look for, hire, train and retain new employees. Just like Google--but far less zeros. Sure, any one back of the house employee is relatively easy to replace. However, that could never hope to explain mistreating a staff of 25-40--which is what we're talking about. I'm gonna constantly be on the hunt for new employees over .50-1.00 an hour? Why on earth would I do that?

And you know I could list about 250 other companies, without really trying, who treat their employees just like the tech companies i listed do. I could move to big pharma, financial services, bio-tech, engineering, big consulting, professional services so on and so forth.

Maybe Apple's contract employees would like to organize. And maybe you would like to pay $1,300 for an IPhone. What happens in other countries wasn't really the focus of the conversation.

I have said this before but your MOS should have put you in JAG, Harm. LOL

I've been waiting for you to check in. Figured the wifi at the dinner was down. HAHAHAHA.

That said, your arrival brings out my singular reservation about crapping on the unions. Obviously, i have lots of friends who do yeoman's public service work, for not a ton of dough. That is the ONE reservation I have when making this argument. lol.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:


You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

That is not at all what I am arguing. I am pretty sure I was going the exact opposite direction.

No market is perfect. All the theories we learn in school are just theories. No company or person has perfect information, and even if they did the person negotiating with them doesn't have perfect information. Equal negotiating leverage is also really rare.

Sometimes companies and unions will make bad deals that overly favor the company. Sometimes that will make deals that overly favor the union. But the point is there is nothing artificial about employees collectively bargaining. Unless of course you consider ALL collective bargaining to be artificial, in which case you would also have to disband all corporations (which is obviously ridiculous, and I am assuming is NOT your point).

If the government passes a law that REQUIRES companies to collectively bargain with their employees, then I would be against that. At the same time I am saying private entities should be allowed to enter in to contracts as THEY see fit, not as some government sees fit.

And again, as noted previously, my opinion on public sector unions is wholly different (because many of the factors above simply do not exist in the case with governments since they do not have the same options as private individuals and corporations).

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

You dropped your academic credentials, not me.

I didn't question whether you went to Rutgers. I made a flippant comment, in regards to your flippant comment that I was "regurgitating theories" I learned in school, suggesting that there aren't many, if any, anti-union professors at RBS. So any theories I may be regurgitating, are my own.

And my capital is just as mobile as your labor (and of course you will disagree with that). So I can move to the next vacant land down the street and not operate in the Westin. However, somebody will operate in the Westin. And that somebody does so accepting that there is no negotiation to be had. The workers in the hotel are in the union. Period. Their inflated wages are passed along to SOMEONE. Period. Either the firm or the customer or both. To pretend they are paying that wage willingly and as a result of a negotiation is dumb. And you know it.

You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

And Der, if you argue they are easily replaceable, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know how many times your average kitchen turns over this time a year? When the landscaping trucks start rolling? There are nuances to this market that you have no idea about. I don't exert downward pressure on wages because it is against my best interest to constantly look for, hire, train and retain new employees. Just like Google--but far less zeros. Sure, any one back of the house employee is relatively easy to replace. However, that could never hope to explain mistreating a staff of 25-40--which is what we're talking about. I'm gonna constantly be on the hunt for new employees over .50-1.00 an hour? Why on earth would I do that?

And you know I could list about 250 other companies, without really trying, who treat their employees just like the tech companies i listed do. I could move to big pharma, financial services, bio-tech, engineering, big consulting, professional services so on and so forth.

Maybe Apple's contract employees would like to organize. And maybe you would like to pay $1,300 for an IPhone. What happens in other countries wasn't really the focus of the conversation.

Hudson - why would you do that? Because you want to make as much profit as possible thats why. $1 an hour times 40 employees times 2000 hours a year is $80,000.

Employers are out to do one thing - maximize profit. In some businesses that means getting the best talent, so you have to pay up. In some, it means getting the cheapest talent. In all of them it means getting the most out of the talent, which often includes pushing boundaries as far as possible without getting caught as far as workplace standards.

The point of the China thing is - the reason unions have fallen by the way side in the US isnt because our economy has suddenly become really friendly to labor, its that its easy to move to places without unions now.

 

[WhoseBusIsThat?]

there are so many false statements in this thread it is embarrassing.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

C'mon man you aren't even trying now.

Originally posted by ruhudsonfan:

The individual restaurant, which has no bargaining power with the union--in fact, the union is forced on them--is making no such mutual agreement. It goes like this. You want to operate the restaurant inside this Westin hotel? Your kitchen staff is unionized. In fact, they are holdovers from the last restaurant that operated here and the fry cook has been here 12 years and makes $19.50 an hour plus benefits.

And it's inefficient to pay the guy dunking fries $19.50 an hour because it distorts the cost of the product. Use your fancy Temple MBA. If the variable costs of the firm are artificially higher due to organized labor, what does it do to the competitiveness of the firm? You better make damn good fries if your labor costs associated with making them are 80% higher than mine. And the fact of the matter is, I can make just as good fries with a $12 labor input as you can with a $19 labor input. Is that not the definition of inefficient?

And you suggest that my argument is devoid of reality?

Unions are forced on new entrants into unionized markets. In cases where firms have decided to buck the unions, grocery industry as an example, employees are considerably more satisfied with their work experience.

I'm sorry, no union can force a restaurant to use union labor.

The restaurant has a choice where they want to operate. If they decide that want to operate in the Westin Hotal and the Westin Hotel also has an agreement with a labor union that only union laborers can work within its operations, then THAT IS THEIR CHOICE. But it is all done via contracts between private individuals. There is nothing ARTIFICIAL about it.

As I said though, my opinion with regards to how unions work in the public sector are a different ball of wax.

Its also weird you are getting so personal about it (questioning whether I went to RU, then making the "fancy" comment about where I got my MBA).

Personally I am happy I am not in a union. I would be perfectly happy if none of the plants in our division were union. I recognize that some unions make really stupid deals that are bad for themselves and the companies they work for. I just recognize that they have the right to exist and negotiate, and that when bad deals are made that management/owners have just as much culpability as unions. As a manager myself, it is MY responsibility to make sure that I don't agree to bad deals (on behalf of the owners).

You dropped your academic credentials, not me.

I didn't question whether you went to Rutgers. I made a flippant comment, in regards to your flippant comment that I was "regurgitating theories" I learned in school, suggesting that there aren't many, if any, anti-union professors at RBS. So any theories I may be regurgitating, are my own.

And my capital is just as mobile as your labor (and of course you will disagree with that). So I can move to the next vacant land down the street and not operate in the Westin. However, somebody will operate in the Westin. And that somebody does so accepting that there is no negotiation to be had. The workers in the hotel are in the union. Period. Their inflated wages are passed along to SOMEONE. Period. Either the firm or the customer or both. To pretend they are paying that wage willingly and as a result of a negotiation is dumb. And you know it.

You are arguing, presumably with a straight face, that the labor market is not disjointed when you and I can have the exact same skill set, do the exact same job, but you be paid anywhere from 75-300% more than me, based on where you physically stand while doing your job. If you believe that is "good" God Bless. I think it's horribly inefficient.

And Der, if you argue they are easily replaceable, you have no idea what you are talking about. You know how many times your average kitchen turns over this time a year? When the landscaping trucks start rolling? There are nuances to this market that you have no idea about. I don't exert downward pressure on wages because it is against my best interest to constantly look for, hire, train and retain new employees. Just like Google--but far less zeros. Sure, any one back of the house employee is relatively easy to replace. However, that could never hope to explain mistreating a staff of 25-40--which is what we're talking about. I'm gonna constantly be on the hunt for new employees over .50-1.00 an hour? Why on earth would I do that?

And you know I could list about 250 other companies, without really trying, who treat their employees just like the tech companies i listed do. I could move to big pharma, financial services, bio-tech, engineering, big consulting, professional services so on and so forth.

Maybe Apple's contract employees would like to organize. And maybe you would like to pay $1,300 for an IPhone. What happens in other countries wasn't really the focus of the conversation.

I have said this before but your MOS should have put you in JAG, Harm. LOL

I've been waiting for you to check in. * Figured the wifi at the dinner was down. HAHAHAHA.

That said, your arrival brings out my singular reservation about crapping on the unions. Obviously, i have lots of friends who do yeoman's public service work, for not a ton of dough. That is the ONE reservation I have when making this argument. lol.

I've been in Naples all week and just go back on here last night. * The finer establishments on 5th Avenue down there frown on that. ;)

And not wanting to get involved in the thread, just making an observation about your obvious internet litigator skills. And I mean that as a compliment.

 

[50 yd line RR]

Hudson,
I know you think unions are the root of all evil and they cause massive inflation,but you might want direct some of your
frustration at some of the other issues that are killing our economy..
1) Offshoring of jobs.
3) Insourcing of jobs.
4) Corporate welfare ."who pays for that the Easter Bunny"
5) Corporate Raiders who purchase viable companies, run up serious debt and sell them piece by piece.
Usually shipping what is left oversees.
6) ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council.Corporate lobbyists who dictate to the politicians what bills they will pass.Who's interest do you think they have in mind?
7) Private Prisons,where fortune 500 companies are lining up to take advantage of prison labor.
8) High tuition costs,trillions in student loans and a very limited chance of getting a job that will pay a living wage,to afford to pay off those loans.
9)High cost of health insurance.
10) Offshore Banking.
These are some of the things that are going on that have a larger impact on our society.
Unions don't have the power to control these events,and they certainly don't benefit from them.
In light of all this, it amazes me to know that there still people out there who want to blame unions for the problems that we have in this country.
A little FYI for you,your family of "union" insulators you referenced in an earlier post ,the ones who make union jobs take longer because they get paid travel time and leave early because they do piece work.They might be good insulators but they aren't good union men. Piece work is frowned upon by every trade for obvious reasons.The travel time they get is limited to 1/2 hour,and no other trade gets travel time.
My point is you base your opinion on what a "union job is" on a minor trade (insulators) and you site guys who break the rules as an example. I have to ask you, have you ever been on a union job?or any job for that matter?
The carpentry contractor you reference, companies like that dangle prevailing wage work(rate work) to their employees like a carrot."Work for $28 now and I will get you rate work, so it averages out to $50 per/hour".
You think that OSHA is going to protect workers but in reality they are another gov't agency that has been asked to do more and more with less.An agency that faces continual budget cuts.
The bottom line the new basketball facility could be built in a year,again union labor is an asset not a liability.

,