well, I am going to disagree with you twice.
first, unions are not looking out for the worker, they are a business and are looking out for themselfs. their marketing campain is that they help the worker, just like red bull claims to give you wings (restore mental and physical alertness). both contain half truths and outright lies. Unions used to exist to help the worker, now they make a show of it, but like any big business, the heads are living off the lower workers, which I know you hate.
secondly, you cant have everyone above average. its imposible using conventional math. some will be higher, some lower. costs will trend to the average, but will vary with location. so a nice area, will cost more than a cheap area, meaning that min wage will be hard to live on. that gives people a reason to work to get above that.
also, we dont all use the things the companies pay for, but it is an insurance scheme. I have never used employment insurance, and dont forsee using it any time soon. but I pay into it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:42:44 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, thats where I disagree. A minimal wage should be enough to ensure a normal, comfortable lifestyle, decent of a 21st century worker, instead of an 11th century peasant - as it does now. And, again. Of course the unions are against a minimun wage that would only suffice for bare survival - they represent the workers, after all. If they didnt stand up against cases like these, whats the point of having them?
Oh, I know. The wage that is left to the worker is usualy only about a half of what the employer pays for the worker. But... It would be a big mistake to say that it is not for the worker. The pension certainly is, as is insurance, and all those things that have to be payed to the state - public healthcare, education, ect... SInce we all use (or have been using) those services.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I dont think that minimum wage should alow many luxuries. sure its tough, but people need to move themselfs into a position to earn more. they do that by various measures, hard work, training, etc. unions dont suport any of those as it puts pressure on all to preform
another article. Dont confuse labour cost with wage, many do, but labour cost is wage, benefits, vacation pay, employers portion of pension, federal pension, employment insurance, and other things.
still a good job
http://ca.us.biz.yahoo.com/ap/090417/canada_chrysler_union.html?.v=6
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, I guess that is pretty much the same as here. Minimal wage can barely suffice to keep some food in your stomach, somekind of a roof above your head, and maybe a scrap of clothing on your back. Nothing more.
As for Chrysler workers... I dont know. Maybe there is a way to get out of the shit without going inot their wages. I think there probably is. We would have to know more to judge that, but putting them on average wage isnt such a crime, if it cant be avoided, imo.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | min wages are by province and state. in ontario, where most of the plants in canada are, min wage is probably 9 something an hour. average (total) would be earnings of about 50 -60K a year (ontario includes a lot of banks and the federal govt, which pay well), second highest average in canada. the min wage wouldnt keep you well if you were single and lived in a major city. the average wage would. the wage cuts would put these guys into the average bracket, or slightly above it with overtime.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Just to give me a bit of a prespective here... What would be the average and minimal wages in Canada (and in the US, if you happen to know), and is the minimal wage enough for a normal lifestyle?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yeah, costs are probably higher here, but still. after the cutbacks that would put them above the average wage in the whole country, with no training.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ah, thats something else, then. Now, I dont know how much would be enough for an American citizen (costs of food, housing, ect... Tend to be higher there than here, I think), but if I compare it to my 4,5€ per hour (which is a good wage for someone my age), I guess that they have a lot of room for cut backs there.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | straight wage of about $25 an hour (after the cuts) plus benefits, vacation....
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see... Well, what kind of a wage are we talking about here?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | 90% could be replaced by robots, who would be cheaper and do beter work. the company kept caving in to the union, which got them to this situation.
dunno the wages of the managers, they took a 20% cut in managment workforce, and a 10% pay cut for the manager that stayed a while back. I say close the plants. why employ people who wont help keep the company afloat. its not like a pay cut will cause these fools to starve, they earn more than most managers do.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, yes, but thats the cost of their work without which, the company wouldnt even exist.
Now, maybe they should take some of the burdain on themselves, but then again... What are the wages of the managers? Its kinda hard for them to accept wage cuts, if the management wont give up their fleets of Ferraries.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, these people cost more than an engineer, to do basic asembly work. their cost (and the way the union prevents higher quality) is a main reason the company has no money. to sugest that they should not help keep the company from going bankrupt is nonsense. they can keep what they have and the company has no choice but to close down. I would just say screw it at this point if I ran chrysler, and file for chapter 7. liquidate and let some one else posibly buy the factory and deal with this stupidity.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Sounds like a typical extortion. Accept lower wages, or get fired. Of course the unions are against it. Thats what theyre there for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
