Michigan Votes Forum

Typical Republican move to acelerate labor's race to the bottom of the wage scale. Next comes the bill to import even cheaper Chinese labor, all in an attempt of course to save the taxpayer's money.

 Huh?  Gypsy, are you at all aware of the concept of a free market?  Why is it you care so much about "labor" which of course means dues paying union members (which just makes the union a business anyway) but you don't care about all of the unemployed construction workers who would be perfectly happy to do the job for half the price?  You speak of the taxpayers almost as if they are a mere nuisance that must be dealt with in order to get the money that is rightful the property of the government anyway.  Frankly, your comment disgusts me (and I don't care that you don't care).

This is one of the rare pieces of legislation that should actually be passed.

I'm sure the "unemployed construction workers" would be just thrilled to do the work for half the price, or, maybe less. The race goes on.

The "unemployed construction worker" is the taxpayer. The more he makes, the more he pays. He is also the government, as he votes and participates in this democracy.

I'm not surprised my comment "disgust" you. I'm sure it frightens you too.

I'm also not surprised you favor legislation that suits your personal needs, at the expense of others.

 Yes, the thought of complete abolition of the free market in favor of a market controlled by big labor, big business and big government frightens me and I believe you to be lackey for those interests.

I'm sure if this were put to a vote of the citizens of Michigan they would agree with this bill.

How about a market where labor and business coexist; where labor has collective bargaining rights and businesses can compete with each other on efficiency and quality, rather than depending on cheap labor to keep their prices low? I'm sure most Michigan voters would be in favor of that.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Abraham Lincoln

Unionized Labor has taken Michigan down the drain by exacting high wages and benefits that have now bankrupted most of the big three auto manuifacturers.  The days of sweat shops and child labor are over.  Union workers have all kinds of perks and benefits which amount to approximately $8,000 per car coming off the assembly lines.  Union and labor have a death grip on each other which does not work for the benefit of either.  The whole system needs to be restructured so that fair labor standards are in place without bankrupting the "company store."

As far as school and government workers are involved, a fair wage is a competitive wage in a free market where everyone is able to talk and negotiate.  Schools are tax run entities and therefore suffer when the general public suffers from unemployment and the recession we are going through.  To dictate a "fair wage" is patently unfair to the rest of us who pays the bills.  We all need to share the opain equally and realize the the sugar daddy tax payer doesn't have deep pockets full of expendable cash.  Unions do not foster these kinds of conditions but in fact exasperate them.

Union labor has built Michigan, built the towns around the auto industry, and provided the source for a thriving tourist industry for 50 years. The days of child labor and sweatshops are over, thanks to unions and the power of collective bargaining, but could and will return if we are not vigilant. Union workers do have "all kinds of perks", like healthcare, pensions, vacations and a living wage. With those "perks" they buy houses, go to restaurants, buy cabins up north, send their children to college, and pay taxes. That's what feeds a thriving economy. The system that needs restructuring is the so-called free trade, where manufacturing can be sent overseas for cheaper labor, and products imported to this country without tariffs to protect our own manufacturing base.

A fair wage is a wage where the worker, whether he works for the government or a private company, can negotiate his wage on a level playing field, and both the company, and the worker, thrive. Unions have done the leg work in finding a fair wage.

The "rest of us" aren't the only ones paying taxes. We all do.

 Unions pit their members against the companies they work for, a recipe for failure of both.  Unions use coercion and intimidate to achieve their goals, bringing out the worst characteristics of human beings.  Unions prevent people from working unless they pay the union protection money referred to as dues because unions are big businesses that do not actually have the best interest of the their members or the businesses for which they work in mind.  Unions make businesses uncompetitive, killing jobs.  Unions do not reward initiative or productivity, in fact they discourage it so they can take more people to do a job so they can collect more dues.

Unions are why most of the population of the US couldn't give a crap about the Detroit three automakers.  People are tired of hearing stories from UAW members about how they only work three hours a day or get paid to not work.  The only growth in unions is in the public sector because there is no competition there.  Now they want to pass a law allowing unions force a non-secret ballot to unionize so they can use more violence, threats and intimidation to make people vote for the union.

gypsy, you can tout the union line all day but the fact is, unions use force to get what they want, not free choice, and I think that is bad.  There are many good, hard working union members but there are many who take advantage of the system and should have been fired years ago.  This bill should pass and let initiative and free choice win out over brutality and intimidation.

Dear changeagent:

I have done a little editing of your rant against unions, just to demonstrate that extremist characterizations from either direction (a) invariably are off-putting, (b) get in the way of honest discussion, and (c) accomplish nothing.  Here, for your reading pleasure and amusement is the result:

-----------------------------

Business owners and management pit their organizations against the employees work for them, a recipe for failure of both.  Businesses and management use coercion and intimidate to achieve their goals, bringing out the worst characteristics of human beings.  Businesses and management prevent people from working unless they accept poverty level wages referred to as compensation because management represents big businesses that do not actually have the best interest of the their workers or the businesses for which they work in mind.  Businesses and management make businesses uncompetitive, killing jobs.  Businesses and management do not reward initiative or productivity, in fact they impede it by refusing to invest in incentives and productivity tools so they can encourage employee turnover and retain more profit.

Businesses and management are why most of the population of the US couldn't give a crap about the Detroit three automakers.  People are tired of hearing stories from business and management about how union members only work three hours a day or get paid to not work.  The only growth in businesses is in the public sector because there is no competition there.  Now businesses and management oppose a law allowing unions to sponsor a vote to unionize so they can use more violence, threats and intimidation to make people work for nothing.

You can tout the management line all day but the fact is, businesses and management use force to get what they want, not free choice, and I think that is bad.  There are many good businesses and managers organizations but there are many who take advantage of the system and should have been out of business or fired years ago.  This bill should fail and let initiative and free choice of laborers to organize win out over brutality and intimidation.

----------------------------------

See, now hasn’t that advanced the discussion here greatly?

(I didn’t think so, either.)

 The difference is that no one is forced to take a job, that would slavery.  People should have a free choice to either create their own business or sell their skills to someone who is willing to pay for them.  Businesses are not created to employ people, their purpose is to generate profit.  Many businesses have the interests of their employees in mind for a number of reasons,one of which is they will have a more productive work force if they treat people with respect and fairness, another is that most business owners are compassionate human beings.  Necessity in the interest of profit is often mistaken for lack of compassion, but breaking someone's kneecaps is hard to misconstrue.

I'm very passionate about my belief that humans should be free.

And I'm very passionate about my belief that unions are good for this nation, based on my own life experiences, and a fair reading of history. There has been violence and indimidation on both sides of the labor struggle. The battle of the overpass is a local historical example of business violence towards workers. There are many other's nation wide. These seem to be a thing of the past now, as both labor and management have done most of their latest battles at the bargaining table, the courts, and in politics.

You are correct when you say business is created for profit, not to create jobs. In that same vein, people work jobs not to make profits for the company they work for, but to make money. It only stands to reason that the business owner will pay as little as he can to the worker, thus increasing his profits, and the worker wants to get paid as much as he can, to increase his income. Without a union, a business owner only has to negotiate the wages of one worker at a time. The business owner can fire one worker who wants more pay, and hire someone else who will work for less. With a union, the workers negotiate as one unit, making it much harder for the business owner to fire all the workers at once. This puts both workers and business on fairly equal footing.

Workers should not have to depend on the "compassion" of the business owner, as he does not depend on the compassion of the public to buy his product. This, after all, is business, not charity.

I hope my lesson on the theory behind collective bargaining was instructive to readers of this thread.

changeagent:

The difference is that no one is forced to take a job, that would slavery.

Last I looked, we live on Planet Earth, where taking a job is typically required in order to make a respectable living.  Only the elite idle rich who own businesses and hire others to manage them seem to be exempt from that basic rule.

People should have a free choice to either create their own business or sell their skills to someone who is willing to pay for them.

That is exactly what unions do.  Their members create a business capitalized by their labor, which is sold to the employer per a bargained agreement.

Businesses are not created to employ people, their purpose is to generate profit.

People were not born to serve business.  They were born to make their way in the world.

Many businesses have the interests of their employees in mind for a number of reasons,one of which is they will have a more productive work force if they treat people with respect and fairness, another is that most business owners are compassionate human beings.

Are you joking?  No business today operates with its employees' interests primarily in mind.  We see productive workers laid off by the thousands while managers and owners rake in millions of dollars in compensation.  Business today is driven by greed.  Make no mistake about that.

Necessity in the interest of profit is often mistaken for lack of compassion, but breaking someone's kneecaps is hard to misconstrue.

Necessity to unionize is often mistaken for laziness or greed, or characterized as stupidity.  Breaking of kneecaps to prevent unionization is a well known business tactic.

I'm very passionate about my belief that humans should be free.

Me too.  That's why I believe unions are a necessity.

See.  Isn't this fun?  Without advancing the discussion of this bill an iota?

Unions have a dominant role in Michigan.  Like it or not, the Obama Administration gave 30% control of GM to the Unions and 70% to the government  (you and me).  Most people commenting on the bill have their mind set in the context of large multinational corporations.  Unions are not everywhere good or bad.  But when power gets concentrated, corruption always follows and this is very true of unions.  They grab power and ruin companies.  Michigan is behind the 8 ball because 53% of highly quallified graduates of our major universities leave the state because they know there is little opportunity for them in Michigan.  Taxes are so high and regulations so stiff that they can find better elsewhere.

Companies grab power and ruin ecomomies. This is what we are experiencing now. Enron, AIG, the BofA... Michigan is behind the eight ball because the American auto industry has lost market share. Taxes are not the reason, nor regulations. Gradutes go elsewhere because jobs have gone elsewhere because we have farmed out our manufacturing base to low wage nations. Until we get our trade agreements under control, we continue along the path of a service industry based economy. That is a two legged stool, unable to stand for very long, because it is unable to provide the good paying jobs manufacturing does.

Graduates follow the future.  Michigan has no future with Grandholms' tax and spend policies and over-regulation of industry.  Businesses flee from expensive overhead that cuts their profit.  I submit that $8,000 per car in auto munufacturing benefits to unionized labor is too much.  Wiser to manufacture cars in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi; than continue on this track.

In the US, it takes about 30 hours total, for the body, engine, transmission, assembly, paint, etc. doesn't include things like outsourced parts and mining the ore (or recycling old cars). the labor costs from $55-$70 per hour including benefits so about $2100 per car, or roughly 8% the cost of the average car. doesn't sound that high until you compare the tata nano, which costs $2500 total.

Labor costs are higher at companies with older presences, because they tend to have more expensive health care, larger families, and because the pensions become more expensive over time. national healthcare and pensions would make doing business a lot easier. Ford and GM pay ~$70 and Toyota pays ~$55. Source unknown.

$70/hr sounds like a ton of money, but starting wage for laborers is only about $14/hr....barely enough to pay the bills in the US. The top earners make $29/hr. Health care and pensions cost equivalent of about $15/hr, vacation time, overtime, sick leave are the equivalent of roughly $10 per hour. Benefits for retirees are roughly $15/hr (this isn't really wages by most definitions but ends up in all the reports).

The difference in *time to build a car* between manufacturers is small (10% difference from worst to best). So the difference in *cost to build a car* between Ford's and Toyota's labor cost per vehicle is $15/hr * 30 hours + $70/hr * 2hrs, or roughly $600 , or < 3% of total cost. 

Another question to ask is how much does *overhead* cost to build a new car? How much in management, paper pushing, legal fees, etc. Also, instead of beating that old dead horse of the cost of labor (heard it since the 70's!), it might be interesting to know why some manufacturers have better looking, more fun to drive, more reliable vehicles. Making a better-organized dashboard is free....so who are the managers that think this is a bad idea? Who was the brains behind the Pontiac Aztec? Why does GM use cheap plastic instead of more sturdy stuff for $5 more? There are great designers, engineers, craftsmen, and businesspeople in the US. They just don't work in lofty places at the big 3! 

The cost of a car or just about anything is the cost of labor. The labor to make the robots that assemble the cars, the labor to build the buildings. the labor for outsourced parts, and even the labor earnings that was invested to buy the land.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_labor_cost_to_build_a_new_car

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.

This bill is an attempt to undermine union wages, and should be rejected. Companies that bid for work paid for by the taxpayers should pay their workers, also taxpayers, the prevailing wage.

 If it makes sense to pay double to get a road or school built, why don't we pass a law that makes the minumum wage $500 an hour?  Then would be no poor people and everyone would have a good living wage.

It makes sense to pay for the highest quality skilled tradesman to build our schools and roads. The prevailing wage law insures we get those skilled craftsman, rather than unskilled workers getting paid half as much, to use your unsourced math.

The amount of money paid to an individual or group has nothing to do with their qualifications or quality of work.  I know that you believe that a journeyman union guy must do the work in order to get quality.  But that is the mind set of most Michiganians and one reason why Michigan is in trouble finanancially.  I agree that a gopod apprenticeship program with trade sanctions on who is qualified and who is not is required.  But the wages they exact need some controls.

The wages they exact has controls, collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is a big stick all biased toward the union side.  It is an adversarial prossess not at all ending in the general good.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act clearly states the rights of American workers:
    Employees shall have the right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist labor organizations; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection....
    Section 7 also protects workers' rights to join labor unions which will best represent their interests and/or to take other collective action to defend their rights in the workplace. Taft-Hartley amended this section by adding that employees "shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities."
    The act officially recognizes that under modern economic conditions "an individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty," so that a worker must be free to organize collectively. As a declared national policy, the NLRA encourages collective bargaining, defines the rights of employees and employers in this process, and seeks "to eliminate certain practices on the part of labor and management that are harmful to the general welfare."

You can cite all the laws you want.  The fact is that when labor has a hammer lock on industry, we all suffer, including the workers, whose costs for everything rise in an inflationary spiral.  Card Check is big labor's attempt to make everyone unionized, whether or not they want to be.  The right of individuals top chose their own system is subjugated to the pressure to unionize.  Most of the labor force does not understand basic economics 101.   When labor has this tight fisted control business seeks a better environment which includes China, Mexico, and other areas of the world.

Dear Shearwater:

Let’s just change a few words in your rant, and see how it reads (with equal validity, I might add):

You can cite all the laws you want.  The fact is that when capotal/management has a hammer lock on industry, we all suffer, especially the workers, whose costs for everything rise in an inflationary spiral.  Opposition to Card Check is big businesses attempt to perevent anyone from unionizing, whether or not they want to be.  The right of individuals top chose their own system is subjugated to the force of capital/management.  Most of management does not understand basic economics 101, and we see by the meltdown of the banking industry, and major automakers.   When capital/management has this tight fisted control workers seek a better environment by unionizing.

Note that this rant, like yours does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion of this particular bill.

gypsy:

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act clearly states the rights of American workers:

It's not like there has never been any bad laws passed.  This is one of them.

FreeSpeaker:

Note that this rant, like yours does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion of this particular bill.

 Actually, Shearwater's post does advance the discussion because it is true.  You just don't like it.

changeagent:

FreeSpeaker:

Note that this rant, like yours does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion of this particular bill.

 

 Actually, Shearwater's post does advance the discussion because it is true.  You just don't like it.

Actually, my above rants, which are based directly on those posted by you and shearwater with a few key words changed, are just as valid and true as yours and shearwater's.  You just don't like that truth.

But the fact is, none of those rants advances discussion of this bill.  All they amount to is broad-brush, hare-brained idelogical raving that contains small grains of underlying truth.  Raving of that sort goes nowhere and gets in the way of honest discourse.    

I had a class at Michigan State University and one of our adjunct priofessors told us about his work with GM.  If you didn't drive an American car, you couldn't park in the company parking lot.  Also, management in cosort with the unions had a dragline that searched your background for any cases where you might have crossed a picket line as a scab.  If you had any possible history of crossing a picket line, you were automatically disqualified for work.  That is the kind of games the unions play and the reason unionization isn't a firned of freedom of choice in the workplace.  Funny Michiganians don't get it!

The minimun wage is simply a ruse to get the entire unionized work force a salary increase.  It does very little to raise the standards of living for employees but does a lot at preventing business from expanding and offering new hires a decent job.  The Companies who have the businesses are the ones who laid the "Golden Egg," and unions do nothing but kill the kind of opportunity those companies could create.  Around 1988, Michigan had a high school graduation rate of that was figured at 48th among all States in the United States.  Guess what.  Michigan teachers are among the highest paid in secondary education in the United States.  Don't get me wrong, I am all for teachers getting a decent wage.  But there is a proviso.  They should also be able to educate students so that the students can do well on all the standardized tests of educational development.  The MEA is the union that regulates teacher policies with regard to collective bargaining.

shearwater:

I had a class at Michigan State University and one of our adjunct priofessors told us about his work with GM.

Second hand anecdotes are hardly the basis for an intelligent discussion.

shearwater:

The minimun wage is simply a ruse to get the entire unionized work force a salary increase.  It does very little to raise the standards of living for employees but does a lot at preventing business from expanding and offering new hires a decent job. 

Economists' new research shows positive effects of minimum-wage increases

By Andrea Buffa, UC Berkeley Labor Center | 23 July 2008

BERKELEY — As various states consider minimum wage increases, and with Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama proposing that the minimum wage be increased and indexed to adjust for cost-of-living increases, researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE) have found that such increases do benefit the lowest-paid workers and do not have negative effects on their employment.

Institute director Michael Reich, a UC Berkeley economist, has authored two new reports on the topic.

 "Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment?," a study completed last month by Reich and campus labor economists Sylvia Allegretto and Arindrajit Dube, used data from the government's Current Population Survey from 1990 through 2007 to analyze minimum-wage impacts on teenagers, who represent about one-fourth of all minimum-wage workers. The study controlled for state, regional, and local economic conditions, as well as for individual characteristics. It found no significant teen employment loss due to minimum-wage increases. While it revealed a very small loss of work hours among teens, the loss of hours was offset by the minimum-wage pay increase.

The other study, "Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders: Estimates Using Contiguous Counties," by Dube, T. William Lester and Reich, compared all neighboring U.S. counties across state borders with different minimum-wage levels between 1990 and 2006. The exhaustive study carefully controlled for local economic conditions, an important advance over previous studies. It also controlled for county size, population, and geographic region. The study found no adverse employment effects in counties with a higher minimum wage.

The researchers say their findings may be due to the fact that a higher minimum wage attracts more workers and reduces a firm 's vacancy rate; in addition, decreased turnover increases productivity and reduces the cost of expanding employment, they say.

"It appears that minimum-wage increases are not job killers — they are job-vacancy killers," Reich says.

The full text of the new studies, as well as other minimum-wage research from the institute, can be found on the IRLE website.

 I enjoy these studies.  I like the rigorous, detailed analysis, complete with statistical formulas. 

My summary after reading the paper is: the study says that other people's research showing job loss when minimum wages are increased is wrong because they didn't consider differences do to different regions.  Also, that their study, which shows that minimum wage laws have no effect on NUMBER OF JOBS, is a better measure.  Oh, by the way, we weren't able to measure whether there was a decrease in hours worked for those jobs, but we don't think that made much of a difference.  Also, we mainly looked at restaurant workers, and extrapolated to other workers, which shouldn't be very different.  Also, we didn't look at whether jobs were displaced with other workers, for example, hiring older workers rather than minority teens, who presumably have more skills to offer for the extra wages paid, but we don't think that should be significant. 

The problem with these kinds of studies is similar to policy makers using Keynesian economics.  Keynsian economics is flawed, but because it gives them  an excuse to do what they want to do, they won't look at anything else.  Austrian economics makes total sense.  It explains business cycles, which no other economic theory does.  Austrian economics is qualitatively different form Keysian.  Austrian economics recognizes that there are too many unknown variables in economics to ever predict the future.  It only shows logically what kind of effect a policy will have.  A tax increase on something will lead to less of that thing than it would have without a tax increase.  It is impossible to predict exactly what the outcome will be, only that it will be less. 

Correspondingly, an increase in costs, such as minimum wages imposed by government, will lead a lesser demand for labor than without a minimum wage.  No one can predict what employment will actually be.  It may go up.  It may go down.  All due to the myriad of variables that a scientific study cannot control for.  So whether you are union or management, it does no good to point to these kinds of studies.  This study showed no effect of minimum wages.  The next one will show job loss all due to minimum wages.  The nature of economics does not lend itself to the scientific method.  We cannot control the variables to do a valid experiment. 

We have to remember this when some politician sites a study that "proves" anything,  and therefore,

1. We need more regulation to prevent ....
2. We need more taxes to help pay for .....
3. I have the only solution to the problem of ..... and you must give me more power to implement it.
4. Rinse.  Repeat.

Brilliant.

Ignore scientific studies.

Austrian economics is better than Keynsian, because you believe it is.

We should listen to you, even though you provide no basis in fact, other than your opinion.

Sounds like the foundation for a dictatorship to be built on. We have no control, you provide us with the answers and keep us safe.

Brilliiant.