• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Labor/Workers movements thread

wakephan09 said:
Yes, I think that's exactly why committees exist like the ones BBD and I served on this year. The market can't always correct veteran wages (without people leaving) and companies want to retain their workers so they build mechanisms to do it
Click to expand...
Agreed. I still think it’s a necessity to differentiate being concerned with one’s salary being too low, and being concerned with others salaries being too high. Crabs in a bucket mentality demands criticism always.
 
avalon said:
How much of this is due to the fact that companies have to offer more to new employees to lure them away from other options, whereas they can low ball current employees unless they threaten to leave?
Click to expand...

A lot, I think. And those senior employees were once junior employees who received better wages, benefits, and perks. We’ve got a major problem in this country with resenting younger generations/cohorts. Phan is right to bring up compression, but I’m not sure that’s what’s happening in Slim’s example. His pops could be in the union and, for whatever reason, has chosen not to? I think that’s where the resentment may be coming from.
 
avalon said:
How much of this is due to the fact that companies have to offer more to new employees to lure them away from other options, whereas they can low ball current employees unless they threaten to leave?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Seems to me like it’s in management’s best interest to foster resentment among workers. It would reduce the power of the unions if older workers are mad that younger workers are making more money. Is "wage compression" as an economics concept just a fabrication by management to keep workers fighting amongst themselves more and fighting with management less? Cause here is a thing, paying incoming workers closer to what older workers are paid, keeps management from letting higher paid older workers go and hiring younger cheaper workers. It gives a little more job security to the old timers.

It also seems like old timers should be mad a management for not increasing everybody's pay linearly with time served rather than mad at the Union and newbies for only newbies getting more money. Looks like misdirected frustration here. I am confused by Pickle's complaints here. Seems that there was no strike, that the union laid out some heavy demands and then made concessions in negotiations with management, and everybody benefitted, even his non-union dad.
 
Wage compression, seems to me, is likely variably appropriate depending upon the job. When not ideal, it would favor either less or more experienced workers. If significantly out of balance it’s not sustainable, probably. And the advantaged group would likely suffer more cutbacks when demand goes down (etc.).

If people can do essentially the same work after 1-3 years of experience, probably not a good reason to have salaries continue to rise (as a function of time worked) afterwards. Of course if moving up the ladder (doing different work that requires more experience or expertise, that’s different).
 
union employees stood up, paid their due$, gave their time/effort, put their necks out and demanded better concessions for their labor vs the money the company was making.

Management gave a 25% raise (along with other concessions) that they could have given years ago.

Seems non union employees are benefiting off the hard work and negotiations of others.
 
avalon said:
How much of this is due to the fact that companies have to offer more to new employees to lure them away from other options, whereas they can low ball current employees unless they threaten to leave?
Click to expand...
So it's like the basketball roster and nil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top