|
Aren't there already laws on the books guaranteeing the ability to discuss wages? Obviously they're unenforced, but it would probably take as much political effort to get new laws passed as it would to greatly step up enforcement and policing of current labor law.
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
I don't think it's likely that total compensation or total labor costs would go down in that case, I'd be interested to hear why you think they would. It would probably lead to flattening of wage disparities within companies but that would involve salaries below the mean being raised. Labor as a whole would have more bargaining power than before.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I don't understand why their arn't more unions like that in america. Well public sector workers are mostly unionized, although they've been under constant attack for decades, have less presence than in other countries, and have less presence in red states. Private sector manufacturing was fairly heavily unionized but those companies started 'offshoring' early on to the South which had/has poo poo labor laws in order to break unions, and then started offshoring for real later on to do the same. White collar office workers were generally treated well by corporations during the heyday of unions but were generally not actually unionized, and corporations hosed them over without much resistance when it became viable to do so. Service industry jobs have never had unions and have basically always been poo poo jobs for poo poo wages. So basically the only decent jobs left are professionals and semi-professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
cafel posted:Well based on the fact that the National Federation of Federal Employees, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, has 100,000 members throughout the federal government, I'm going to say that's because it's not true. Whoops, you're right, I remembered they couldn't strike. Slobjob Zizek posted:Most state governments and state universities already make salaries public. As far as I know, this really hasn't helped anyone's bargaining power. State jobs generally have much better benefits and job security than equivalent private sector jobs. Exactly how much of that is due to open wages isn't clear without data but it's not unreasonable to think it's at least part. In general I don't see much effective difference between vigorously enforcing current labor law stipulating you can't be fired for discussing wages and making wages public, besides of course ease of enforcement. Seems to me if you're opposed to one you'd necessarily be opposed to both. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Branman posted:While we're saying that networking at your university is inherently unjust and is nepotism, can we also shout down poor black people networking through their churches as nepotism and unjust? That's literally the definition of nepotism. Not a very severe case but still nepotism. If you're OK with that fine, I'm not going to pretend that that's something we can, or even want to, completely get rid of, but call it what it is. Finding jobs through networking is actually a bad thing if you consider an anonymous meritocracy to be a good thing. I guess acknowledging that middle/upper middle class white society runs on connections more than merit is some sort of existential threat to you, to the point where you felt compelled to burst in here and complain about people attacking that system (they weren't even really doing that though?) Black people doing that would also technically be a bad thing, although obviously black people aren't exactly living large off nepotism, which I thought need not be mentioned but I'm starting to have my doubts. Branman posted:The value of your network has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not getting a job through networking is "fair" or is "nepotism." There will always be someone that has a less valuable network than you. ahahahahahaha holy poo poo, you sure are mad about those loving black people doing the exact same thing you're defending huh? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Branman posted:Nope. I'm saying that they should be doing it. That's how you find a job. I'm trying to call out that this happens on all levels of society and cannot be ignored. Seriously, poor black people utilizing social captial through their churches is a good thing. So my belief is the opposite of what you think my belief is. I think most people ITT and most people in general are of the opinion that the ideal society is a meritocracy. Obviously there are very big problems with achieving that and defining 'objective merit' but to come out and literally say "we shouldn't be a meritocracy, success should be determined by who you know, not what you know" seems like a very strange position to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'd like to hear more about what exactly it'll solve and how. It's almost as if the thread has multiple people with separate opinions and proposals and isn't a singularity hivemind
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 03:53
|
|