As an employee, I've always enjoyed getting pay increases, whether it was a one time deal, and annual Christmas bonus or a straight up raise in my regular pay. I'm like most people who believe that if it is possible, it would be nice for my employer to grant me yet more. Also like most people, I believe I'm worth whatever I can get, for even at my worst moments, I still felt that I was overall, fulfilling my obligations and as such was an asset to the company. While not necessarily being the most ass-busting employee in the house, I at least did what I could to ensure I was considered an asset.
Unlike most, I didn't insist I should have more. I never thought in terms of how much my company was making, how much those who owned or ran the company was making. That's because I saw my situation as a contract to which I agreed. I work "so" hard and the company pays me a given amount for it.
I've lobbied for more on occasion. I would argue that my efforts made me an asset which seemed to me to be justification for more, and when refused I was, as most people would be, quite disappointed. But I was still getting the amount to which I agreed when I agreed to take the gig. I was getting what I was supposed to be getting as a result, given there was nothing I was promised I wasn't getting. In some jobs, when I asked at the interview about how to increase my pay, some jobs had specific, though limited criteria, while others said something like, "Well, we'll see..." which told me not to expect anything other than the wage offered at the jump.
As many know, the United Auto Workers are threatening (or maybe by now carrying through with that threat) to strike. It's so nice to know that in these times of inflation, these unionists have no problem adding to it with another pressure. But in listening to their "leader", UAW Prez Shawn Fain, he made a remark about the profits of the company somehow means he and those he pretends to represent are entitled to a larger piece of those profits, under the premise they helped get those profits.
I think this is a bullshit argument. It is expected that good employees means a healthy profit, but that's not the only means by which those profits are generated. Indeed, that's not even among the most important one. Each employee is expected to be a good one. That's why they're offered a wage and compensation package in the first place...to do the job for which they were hired and to do it well. They're not supposed to half-ass it. They're supposed to have integrity and perform to the best of their ability because they agreed to when they took the gig, whether they expressed it in such terms or not. That's what employment is. No one goes into an interview and says, "Yeah, I'll take the job, but I won't bust my ass" or "I won't do it well". Thus, if they were doing their part, and the company was paying what they promised to pay when they were hired, it doesn't matter how much profits the company makes. The contract is fulfilled. (Of course, if at the time of hiring a promise was made by the company to increase their pay when profits rose, that's another thing.)
But let's get back to that "We made you rich" argument used to whine for more. Is that really true? Not really. Certainly not exactly. Again, doing what was expected doesn't justify more pay. Employees aren't hired to "make the company rich". They're hired to do a specific task. Who's ever been hired to "make me rich"? Not me, and at my age, I can guarantee I've had more than few jobs in my life. Never heard those terms before in a job interview. What makes an employer rich? A good business model and a good product or service. Good management to keep the ship afloat in bad weather is another distinct factor. Good employees who do their job as laid out upon hiring may be part of a good game plan, but it's just a part.
The worst part of this is the expectation. I love an employer who chooses to share the wealth. But I have no right...nor does anyone else...to demand that he must. That's just coveting and is too often demanded by those who do the least they can get away with. How many of those employees are busting it all the time? 2%? There seems to be a too common attitude that one is owed a job, and then having gotten one, that one is owed more based not on the terms to which both parties agreed, but based on whatever the employees demand must be paid based on things none of them had all that much to do with.
As if that isn't bad enough, to then withhold one's services until demands are met, and somehow the employer is forced to keep the whiners on the roll, is damned near evil when you think about it. Not only does it impact the income of the company, management, owners and any non-union personnel, but it negatively impact all peripheral businesses, such as suppliers and even local stores, restaurants and gas stations whose profits will suffer while these people aren't working because of the strikers?
So the company gives in and who pays the new wage? The company? Maybe. But at some point, if not immediately, they'll pass those costs on to the customers of their products or services. This will increase costs down the line, including the wages of those who now must pay more for the products of the company whose employees forced it to pay higher wages.
And what if the company sales drop off or it's in some other way no longer making tons of money for any of a variety of reasons? How many who went on strike will step up and strike to reduce their wages?
I don't like labor strikes. Live within your means, save for a rainy day, develop other sources of income, seek a better paying job.
45 comments:
They want an insane 40% pay increase.
I hate unions; they caused me a lot of trouble in my career.
Wow. I had no idea you were so unsupportive of/hostile towards the common worker.
Dan
Marshal...
"But I have no right...nor does anyone else...to demand that he must. "
St James...
Warning to Rich Oppressors
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter."
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
Who says no one has a right to demand employers pay living wages?
St James disagreed in the extreme, comparing such employers to the killers of Jesus.
Dan
Dan assumes employers are oppressors.
"I had no idea you were so unsupportive of/hostile towards the common worker."
You shouldn't, because I'm not. Nothing in my post suggests such a thing. But nice of you to once again ignore the point in order to spew your socialist crap.
"St James disagreed in the extreme, comparing such employers to the killers of Jesus."
I would appreciate if you kept your Scriptural corruption where it belongs: at your blog, where lies go to flourish.
That passage refers to a specific type of person, while you denigrate people you don't know as being like them simply because they offered a wage a moron like you thinks is insufficient. As I said, it's nice when an employer manages a good year and chooses out of his own good heart and volition to "spread the wealth". But one good year doesn't mean a second consecutive good year, or that there aren't needs necessary to the sustenance of the business which must be addressed in order to ensure that second good year. If a given individual needs a certain amount of income in order to live the life desired by that individual, it is up to that individual to find a job which provides the necessary compensation to live that life. It is not up to whatever employer for whom he agrees to work to at any time provide it unless such an agreement was in place at the time of hiring. Without that agreement, the employer is only obligated to pay the compensation agreed upon at the time of hiring. From that point on, it is up to the individual to work to live within his means. If the individual cannot, or will not, the employer has not become an "oppressor" for sticking to the original deal. He did nothing wrong which resulted in the individual's plight. That's on the individual.
Said another way, it is up to the individual to find a gig which pays what he considers a "living wage". People like you are assholes for daring to dictate that the whining of the individual is justified and the individual's employer is solely responsible for making sure the individual can afford everything the individual needs regardless of how the behaviors of the individual led to the individual's plight. Worse, assholes like you would get your panties in a twist if the employer dared suggest how the individual should live based upon the wages to which both parties agreed at the point of hiring.
As such, there's no misery coming upon any employer who hasn't failed to meet the terms of the employment contract between that employer and the employee hired.
The employer's wealth is in no worse or better shape than that of the employee without first understanding how each lived their personal lives. An employer who does what he promised to do at the point of hiring has been faithful to his employees.
The employer's wealth isn't corroded by virtue of some modern progressive asshole pretending he's an oppressor because some employees can't live on what the employee agreed to accept at the point of hiring.
The employer who paid what he promised to pay at the point of hiring have no extra wages crying out against him because of the bad judgements of the hired. The Lord Almighty is not moved by people who live irresponsibly beyond the means of their agreed upon income.
An employer who strives to create a business, often living hand to mouth during the period of building it to sustainability, sometimes working for someone else as he does, taking all the risks of expenditures in time, money and sweat to do so, has every right to enjoy the fruits of his labors without whiny employees demanding more because the employer's business plan worked as well as he hoped.
No innocent people were condemned and murdered by the employer doing no more than contractually obligated to do. The contract between the employee and the employee's family was not satisfied if the employee accepted a job which wouldn't allow the employee to provide for them. The employer has no obligation to the employee's family. The employee does.
Who says no one has the right to demand employers pay a living wage? Honest people do. St. James absolutely does NOT disagree even slightly. He was not speaking of the average employer of today, but of a particular type of asshole of his time. Such may exist in other parts of the world. But in this country, it would be extremely difficult for any employer to get away with the type of behavior about which James spoke against.
Again, ignore James and Jesus on this point all you want. Just don't call yourself a biblical literalist or a follower of Jesus' teachings.
Who says no one has the right to demand employers a living wage? DECENT people do. HONEST people do. That you disagree with decent, honest people... that you disagree with St James who LAMBASTED the rich for refusing to pay living wages to their employers as THE most vile offenders... that you personally in your human opinion want to disagree with Jesus and his brother, that's on you. But don't expect us to turn our backs on Jesus and James and the workers of this world to bow down to you and a bunch of ultra-rich privileged business owners.
Reasonable, honest people have no such need to bow to your wishes.
He was not speaking of the average employer of today, but of a particular type of asshole of his time.
Yes, James WAS speaking to assholes of his time who are very much like the assholes of today. But for a so-called "inerrantist" to simply dismiss a very literal interpretation of James in favor of the rich oppressors and in opposition to the regular working folks of today is just hypocrisy and we see it. There's no need to take such a person seriously. Now, if you want to disavow your so-called "inerrancy" and say clearly that you DON'T take Jesus or James literally (when clearly, you don't), then you might avoid the hypocrisy charge, but not for long. You'd still be wrong from just a decent human being concerned about justice for the working class.
And yes, you are attempting to smear working class union members as greedy and lazy. THEY can see that sort of BS. Shame on you. Why should ANY union member ever vote for the GOP who hate and despise them as lazy and no-good? They shouldn't. You make that abundantly clear.
The modern GOP is ALL about the wealthy over and against the working class and the poor. No wonder you all are doing all you can to limit voting.
Glenn,
I've no problem with how much anyone seeks from an employer. My problem for the purpose of this post is the notion that somehow the employer is obliged to enact wage increases because it had a good year...or good several years. That's their intention regardless and hiring people for various tasks helps them get there. It doesn't mean employees were responsible for the increased profits. They do the same job, exerting the same effort regardless of the fortunes of the company. For example, if they choose to really bust their asses to increase production, but the economy has a negative impact on demand, can they be expected to accept a lowering of their wages? Thus, if they work no harder than they would normally work, the rise or fall of the bottom line is not necessarily or directly impacted by the efforts of the employees. If they employees want to pretend they were the reason the company is swimming in profits, how about if they alter the compensation package to one of commission based earnings, whereby if the company is flush, the employees make money, but if the company is struggling, they won't. But no, they...and the corrupt unions who pretend to care about them...think only of the wealth of others and how somehow they should be getting a big piece of it.
They agreed to a wage, and the wage has been paid. If they're struggling, they did not prepare for hard times. They can seek more, but they can't criticize the boss for not giving more. They can prove themselves as more worthy than others, except the union won't go for that. If I found a guy doing that same job as I did was making more than me, when we were hired the same day, I would certainly wonder why that is. If I found it was because he bust his ass harder than I did, I'd have no standing to bitch.
I recently saw the end of a discussion about this UAW whine the other day, on a business news channel. The host of the show reminded viewers that GM has not paid off all the money they were given by the federal government. "In total, GM received $52 billion from the U.S. government, but only $6.7 billion of this amount was considered a loan. The company already paid back $2 billion" and recently paid back the rest of the $6 billion consider a loan. What of the rest? (The preceding was from an article by Luke Landes at Consumerism Commentary---never heard of it). The host suggested we the tax payers should get repaid before the union gets to squawk about being treated unfairly.
I don't even know how much they're earning now to know if their whine is even reasonable. But last month, UPS was squeezed by their union for a huge increase, too. Their drivers were making $41/hr...one of the highest rates I've seen for hourly pay. Their new contract will push their top rate to $49/hr after a few years, with about half that coming immediately. Those are for full timers who rarely work only 40 hours per week, while earning time and a half for anything over, plus additional pay on holidays and such. They already had the ability to earn six figures. If they work ten hours a day (a reasonable average if not low), they are earning about $117K per year. THAT'S AT $41/HR!!! UPS part timers earn around $15-17/hr. They typically only work four hours per day. They'll be boosted to at least $21/hr, with some reports stating 27.50 and no mandatory OT. I wonder what impact that will have on the company over time. They're supposed to be quite flush these days, and I'm not surprised given the COVID lock downs forcing more online ordering. But now, will they be able to expand their work force, or will they try to find ways to make the work force work more forcibly?
Yet Dan wants to pretend only the employers are greedy (not his of course. They're angels!)
"Dan assumes employers are oppressors"
You misspelled James, Jesus and Mary.
Look. I get it. You fellas favor the rich and powerful over Mary, Jesus, James, the prophets and, well, God. That's fine. Just say so.
Y'all aren't only on the wrong side of history and morality... you're on the wrong side of a literal Bible.
Dan
"No innocent people were condemned and murdered by the employer doing no more than contractually obligated to do."
This is, of course, the argument of the rich slave owners, the rich oppressors throughout history and the rich oppressors that James speaks of. Wealth is a trap, a snare, and it hardens the hearts of the rich oppressors to enable them to enslave and oppress and still sleep at night.
Choose your sides wisely boys. This is a perfect time to take the Bible more seriously and literally.
Dan
"Again, ignore James and Jesus on this point all you want. Just don't call yourself a biblical literalist or a follower of Jesus' teachings."
Providing an accurate explanation for their words is not "ignoring" them. You're corrupting their teachings, so kiss my ass.
"Who says no one has the right to demand employers a living wage? DECENT people do. HONEST people do."
Decent and honest people who are ignorant of how business works perhaps, but not wise people who are decent and honest. And if you're referring to those like yourself when you say "decent and honest people", you're talking about lefty morons who aren't necessarily decent or honest. Indeed, the more like you they are, the less "decent and honest" are accurate descriptions.
"that you disagree with St James who LAMBASTED the rich for refusing to pay living wages to their employers as THE most vile offenders... "
I read the text, Nancy. It says nothing about "living wages". It speaks about not paying wages. There's a blatant difference between the two, and a vast difference between being a literalist as you refer to me, and being an inveterate liar as you expose yourself as being. No where does Jesus, James or anyone else speak of the average employer being oppressive. They refer to specific oppressors who happen to be employers. Big difference, Ducky.
"But don't expect us to turn our backs on Jesus and James..."
No, dear child. I expect you to remove your head from your ass and actually study and understand Jesus and James in light of their actual words, not tainted by your marxist corruption.
"... and the workers of this world to bow down to you and a bunch of ultra-rich privileged business owners."
I expect "workers of the world" (commie POS!) to abide their side of the employer/employee contract. I'm neither "ultra-rich and privileged" nor have I ever owned a business which employed anyone. I simply know what that contract means and my obligation as an employee. If my employer is providing me with the compensation he promised upon hiring me, he's done right by me and I've no right to expect more. If I accepted the job without regard to whether or not I could live on the level of compensation offered, that's on me. If there was talk of what raise in pay might take place at some later time, but there was no written contract of the terms, but only some "we'll see what happens", and I took that to mean I'll get something not promised, that's on me if I choose to take that as a promise when it wasn't.
"Reasonable, honest people have no such need to bow to your wishes."
A funny statement coming from a perv-loving marxist who demands the world bow to yours.
"Yes, James WAS speaking to assholes of his time who are very much like the assholes of today."
Like who? Provide proof there exists people "very much like" those of the times of James. Who is not paying their employees what they promised (not counting those whose business failed and some hours worked might not have been compensated). There are none like that you can name, so admit you're pulling more crap out of your diaper and apologize.
"But for a so-called "inerrantist" to simply dismiss a very literal interpretation of James in favor of the rich oppressors and in opposition to the regular working folks of today is just hypocrisy and we see it."
That's funny. You corrupt another passage and then accuse me of ignoring the actual understanding of it in favor of some mythical rich oppressor employers and in opposition to "regular working folks of today". What you and your crabs see is of no importance to normal people.
"Now, if you want to disavow your so-called "inerrancy" and say clearly that you DON'T take Jesus or James literally (when clearly, you don't), then you might avoid the hypocrisy charge, but not for long."
More comedy. You make up shit about what Scripture is saying and then accuse me. I'm not concerned what charges liars like you bring against me. Christ warned me about people like you.
"You'd still be wrong from just a decent human being concerned about justice for the working class."
But you're NOT a decent human being, Dan. You're a lover of sexual perversion, a defender of infanticide and a covetous hater of the productive. And of course, an inveterate, prolific liar. I'm concerned about true equity...the quality of being fair and impartial. My position considers both sides of the issue equally. Yours is a marxist crap sandwich.
"And yes, you are attempting to smear working class union members as greedy and lazy."
According to the Economic Policy Institute (from Aug 2020), unionized workers make on average 11.2% more than their non-unionized peers. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (Jan 2023), they make 18% more. Yet, every time a contract expires, they seek more. Again, I've nothing against seeking more, but one is making more than others in the same industry, at what point can we say they're greedy for more as opposed to suffering like a beggar in the times of James? Answer that.
Here's a few anecdotal stories from my own work experience:
Years ago I worked in a unionized grocery warehouse. The more veteran guys would tell us new guys to slow down so we can finish up with overtime. Is that the type of working class guys you're defending, or those like me who thought I was to get the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible? I recall one guy in particular who, once OT began, proclaimed so all could hear and get a laugh, (paraphrasing here) "I don't know why but once 12:00 hits I...just...slooooow dowwwwn!" Seems kinda greedy to me.
Over the last 9.5 years, I drove for a company which moved mail for the USPS. They contracted with numerous companies for the purpose. In the Chicago area, it was common to see USPS employees in various manifestations of laziness. Drunkenness was not uncommon. "That's not my job" was not uncommon. "I'm not busting my ass for nobody" was not uncommon. Keep in mind, I was familiar with many examples of good work ethic, but most there had never heard the phrase mentioned before. The good workers were in a constant state of frustration because of the many lazy asses that complicated their work life. Management was no better and with several unions covering the workers there, I've no idea when one no longer was part of a Postal Workers union of some kind.
My wife worked for an electrical contractor for about 15 years before we moved out of Hellinois last year. The electricians all came out of a union hall. That is, when they needed more to fulfill some contract, they'd call the hall and they'd send however many was needed. They'd often see the same electricians and often could request the guys they liked. They would refuse those they didn't and they didn't because they weren't good workers. But they were all union guys. Work for electricians...for many tradesmen...can be spotty, but journeymen made somewhere around $50 per hour when they worked, and got unemployment when they didn't.
This last one is a counter point. My older brother retired from his union painter job. He joined about forty years ago. He insisted that at least in his local, goldbrickers were ostracized and forced out or forced into good workers (usually the former). That union local cared about quality work and demanded it from their members.
So yeah, Skippy. Union workers can be a mix of greedy and lazy and I'd wager there are more of them given the sin nature of mankind, than there are the dedicated workers we all pretend we are. So cut the crap.
"THEY can see that sort of BS. Shame on you."
As is so common with you, you're perverting the point of the post in order to smear better people. The point had to do with the "right" to demand more than that upon which both sides agreed at the point of hiring, and doing so because the owner/employer was making a huge profit as if the owner/employer is somehow obliged to share the excess with those who have been given what the owner/employer was obligated to pay them. But you, being a known dickhead, chose to focus on a tiny part where I referred to those among the demanding who are not good workers in addition to the fact that their pay was already above average. But that's how you roll. Honesty and truth isn't your strong suit. And this greed is supported by a dickhead who preaches "living simply". Thus...
"Why should ANY union member ever vote for the GOP who hate and despise them as lazy and no-good?"
...is a stupid-ass question based on the false premise that I regard ALL union members as greedy and lazy. I would insist that all negotiations are provoked by the unions themselves, because the more they can get for the workers about whom they claim to care, the more they make for themselves. They are the most greedy, and they play upon the greed, covetousness of the average worker to press for more. This is proved by Fain's reference to the profits of the company and how being profitable means the workers must get more.
But you, as a lying sack of shit, choose to pretend I'm attacking workers with my post. I stated a fact and you twisted it to pretend your noble. We see it.
"The modern GOP is ALL about the wealthy over and against the working class and the poor."
There are no shortage of articles (Newsweek, the Nation to name a couple leftist sources) speaking to the Jackass Party (Democrats) being the party of the wealthy. Their policies have had a decidedly disastrous impact on the poor and continue to do so. Only a moron would believe the GOP are doing such harm. You're a really stupid person.
"No wonder you all are doing all you can to limit voting."
Another modern progressive lie. There are no GOP policies which limit voting except that which denies the ineligible. And unlike Dems, the GOP doesn't redefine "eligibility" to get that done. In the meantime, modern progressive fraudulent practices limits the eligible by eliminating each lawful vote every time an illicit vote is allowed by leftist policies.
You'd do well to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture. Of course, you'll need to pray to the One True God while you do, not the invented god you now pretend to worship.
"Look. I get it. You fellas favor the rich and powerful over Mary, Jesus, James, the prophets and, well, God. That's fine. Just say so."
You don't "get" anything, but you do give lots of lies. This is just another of the many you spew routinely and intentionally. And if you want to prove you aren't lying, you can't do it by continually perverting Scripture. Do that at your blog, where lies go to flourish.
"Y'all aren't only on the wrong side of history and morality... you're on the wrong side of a literal Bible."
You mean the literal Bible which says so clearly what an abomination homosexuality is? You mean the literal Bible which clearly demand you don't murder or sacrifice children? You mean the literal Bible which clearly commands you not covet? You mean the literal Bible which speaks against favoritism? You mean the literal Bible which warns against calling evil good and good evil? You mean the literal Bible which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"? These are all things in which you indulge and/or promote and celebrate and you insist those like us are on the wrong side of Scripture? You'd be funny if you weren't so pathetic.
"This is, of course, the argument of the rich slave owners, the rich oppressors throughout history and the rich oppressors that James speaks of."
Really? Name one. Name one slave owner who defended slaver by saying anything in any way similar to this fact: "No innocent people were condemned and murdered by the employer doing no more than contractually obligated to do."
You'd have to go back in history quite a ways in order to find one who could get away with "oppression" of some kind by honestly citing their contractual obligations. It can't be done. If two parties enter into an agreement, how can one side oppress the other without lying about what the agreement actually was? James isn't speaking of anything like the average employer of today and you're an asshole for daring to disparage people you don't know as akin to the rich people James was referencing.
I've worked for some assholes in my life, but none were anything like those James referenced. None of them. What's more, I was not forced to continue working for any of them, as proven by my having left them for better.
You should stop talking, since you've defaulted to lying again. You might want to focus on the point of the post, if you've an intelligent response to submit.
Man! If I was Dan Trabue, I'd have deleted your sorry ass by now!!
Art,
Oh, I thoroughly understand the point of your post; my point was that unions always make unreasonable demands. I could tell you stories.
I want to know just exactly what is a "living wage." It's all subjective.
"rich oppressors'
I noticed Dan used this term in his comparison of those James was referring to and those who own auto companies (likely all companies). I think his use of this term is problematic.
1. By inextricably linking wealth and oppression you condemn those who have wealth, but do not oppress. Unless the point is that all who have wealth automatically oppress.
2. If condemning oppression is your goal, then why not condemn all who oppress instead of singling out only those you consider "rich".
3. It looks like the average union auto worker makes $28/he base, with a potential of up to $66/hr. Benefits are a little harder to pin down, but it does appear that they do have a pension and health ins. This hardly qualifies as "oppressed".
4. It seems likely that there is more than a superficial likeness between the corporations that make cars and the people in James.
5. It's interesting that in Jesus' one instance of talking about employment, He chooses to describe a payment system that is the antithesis of fair.
6. Ultimately, the problem seems to be the unwarranted connection between rich and oppressors which isn't demanded by any rational standard. Why would we assume that James was addressing those who oppress, but are not rich or those who are rich but do not oppress?
I guess it'd be germane to note that the federal government requirements for fuel efficiency, and electric vehicles are going to place a significant burden on the R&D budgets of all of the automakers. It seems reasonable that a significant portion of the higher revenues would go towards fulfilling those mandates, rather than excessive raises for employees. I'd also be interested to see how much of this big surge in revenues is a result of the draconian overreaction to COVID and the resulting shortages of imported car parts. Maybe the auto makers should be using this revenue to bring more parts production back to the US.
Or maybe we should stop telling companies who are legally producing legal products that consumers want and need how to use their revenues.
Glenn,
A "living wage" will forever be fluidly ambiguous as is "fair share" percentage of taxation by the same people Dan berates without any intelligence or facts behind it. It's inane. Imagine three couples. The first is childless, the second has two kids and the third has six. If only the father works, it's clear that a "living wage" is very different for each just based on mouths to feed. If any has a chronic medical condition, that alters the definition for that family as well. There are any number of other issues which are not even based on desire which could alter the equation for any of just the three examples, and they are just examples to illustrate the point of how stupid modern progressives are to use that term to harangue and guilt better people into supporting something so economically stupid. It's a very marxist tactic from someone who pretends to be a capitalist as he pretends he's a Christian.
Craig,
First, I'm going to stick my neck out and assume your point 4 from your first comment is misstated. Would the following be more precise?
"4. It seems UNlikely that there is more than a superficial likeness between the corporations that make cars and the people in James."
That aside, both of your comments are solidly in line with my response to Dan as well as the point of my post.
As to your point #3, 28/hr as a starting wage is $58,240/yr for a forty hour week. That's a great starting wage almost anywhere in the US, even in the disaster of this Biden economy. And in a union environment, it's likely bumped in no more than three years on average...and bumped up significantly. Yeah, dammit! Oppress me!! And as I understand it, Fain seeks to force a switch to a defined pension plan, which means even more money laid out by the employer, as such a pension doesn't generally require employee contributions, as does a defined contribution retirement plan. Does that not smack of greed to you? Even without reaching the $66/hr potential ceiling, one could totally have funded one's own retirement by the time retirement time arrived. Sure. That would require discipline on a personal level, and that's exactly what's lacking in most people these days, especially where we hear of these labor strikes. It's not...and very possibly never...the case of the employer not paying a good wage, it's how that wage is managed by the employee...how the employee mangages his/her life where the problem of living well is most greatly impacted. A "simple liver" should recognize that, one would think.
Your second post illustrates a bit of the many examples of how a business might use their profits. I mentioned a more general intention of ensuring sustainability. If the modern progressive truly cares about the "workers of the world", it seems making sure the workers have a place to go to work might be an important destination for profits. But the modern progressive simply assumes all profits go into their pockets and that's the end of it.
Now to that last point, I read an article which questioned the wisdom of paying this particular CEO $30 million/yr. That's a worthy question for speculation. But regardless of a CEO's abilities, it's still the choice of the company and shareholders how much a person in that position should be paid. What's more, it's really none of any employee's business how much anyone else in the company is paid. Their business is the task for which they are paid to complete each day for the money they accepted to do it.
By inextricably linking wealth and oppression you condemn those who have wealth, but do not oppress. Unless the point is that all who have wealth automatically oppress.
1. I'm not doing or saying anything. My point is not that all who have wealth automatically oppress... as far as that goes. But:
2. I AM noting that JAMES spoke of "rich oppressors," and, more directly, literally, "you rich people..." and "your wealth has rotted... your gold and silver have corroded..." and he spoke literally of those "who have hoarded wealth..." (as opposed to "those who have hoarded wealth AND used their wealth to oppress others..." which he didn't say, not literally).
3. He said ALL of that before narrowing the focus to those to this applied: "The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you." Now, we don't know, James doesn't specify is it the case that rich land owners had workers and then refused to pay them ANYTHING or if he failed to pay them ADEQUATELY. It's just not there in the text.
4. But again, once he says that, he returns to the more broad, "You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter." DANG, that's harsh. James gives no indication if he's speaking broadly of all wealth (or how wealthy) or some subset of wealthy.
5. This is in the context of James' mother, Mary, who sang in her Magnificat,
"God has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
God has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
God has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty."
Again, Mary's LITERAL words are a condemnation of "the rich," period. But maybe she meant it more nuanced than that. It's just not there in the literal text. Taking it literally, she's speaking of "the rich," just as James is.
6. Maybe Paul gives it some nuance in his letter to Timothy, where he said:
"But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation,
into a snare, into many senseless
and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.
It is through this craving that
some
have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs."
7. But it's important to understand this through the words of Jesus:
“No one can serve two masters. He will hate the first master and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and despise the second.
You cannot serve God and wealth.”
and...
“Blessed are those who are poor.
God’s kingdom is theirs....
But how horrible it will be
for those who are rich.
They have had their comfort.”
8. And on it goes. Suffice to say, one can't be a biblical literalist and serious about the teachings of Jesus and NOT be worried about having too much wealth as a trap and a source for potential great evil. It's literally what Jesus, Mary, James, Paul and the prophets taught.
For 3/12 years I worked at the main P.O. in Columbus, OH, midnight shift. When we had more mail than the the letter-sorting machines could handle we got assigned to work the cases sorting mail.
The union fought to do away with piecework requirements, so while had pride in my work and could throw 6-7 trays of mail per hour I watched particular union members sitting talking an not even finishing ONE tray of mail. The stools on which we sat had a foot rest at the bottom and the stool's cushion had several angle-adjustment positions. I found I could work better sitting flat but when caught doing so I'd be yelled at while the individuals talking doing very, very little work never had a thing said to them, because when supes did say something about slow work the union yelled "no piecework requirement."
Then I worked ATC for 30 years. When I started I was told if I didn't join the union I wouldn't be certified; so I joined. 3 years later while still in radar training (a 5-year program for all 5 sectors) PATCO--the union--decided to go on strike, which was totally illegal. I refused to go out due to obeying my oath. My wife got obscene calls, my car was damaged, and they threatened to burn my house--I told them I'd be waiting with my Mini-14 and that ended that nonsense. They wanted more money and a 4-day work week.
Imagine three couples.
Congratulations. You accurately recognize the reality that income needs are different for different people in different settings and states. That IS reality and it's good that you can sometimes recognize reality. Unfortunately...
and they are just examples to illustrate the point of how stupid modern progressives are to use that term to harangue and guilt better people into supporting something so economically stupid.
Unfortunately, while recognizing reality, you nonetheless reach an inane conclusion. "So, let's just IGNORE the reality that some people will need more than others to have a living wage and just blindly trust those Godly corporations to give employees enough, those sainted employers and business entities know what's best and don't need any encouragement from employees as to what is and isn't sufficient. "THE MANAGER KNOWS BEST, amen and amen! Blessed be the CEO."
James STILL disagrees, as do Mary, Jesus and the prophets. And Paul and, well, so on and so on.
September 26, 2023 at 4:14 PM
"1. I'm not doing or saying anything. My point is not that all who have wealth automatically oppress... as far as that goes."
Of course it is, as you never differentiate between those few who oppress (you never provide actual examples of such "oppressors") and those who don't.
"2. I AM noting that JAMES spoke of "rich oppressors," etc....
And you smear all the wealthy, all the corporate heads with this same crap...until your challenged after doing it. Only then do you pretend you didn't mean every rich guy.
"3. He said ALL of that before narrowing the focus to those to this applied: "The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.""
Which is James' sole focus. All else was merely a preface, but not an indictment of anyone BUT those who failed to pay the workers.
" Now, we don't know, James doesn't specify is it the case that rich land owners had workers and then refused to pay them ANYTHING or if he failed to pay them ADEQUATELY."
So here you choose NOT to take him literally, when his specific words referred to employers who "failed to pay the workers". On what basis can you pretend he wasn't being specific or that he meant not paying what you want to regard as a "living wage"? There is no basis except that so obviously flowing from your black, marxist heart.
"It's just not there in the text. "
Honest people not of a marxist bent like you don't inject meaning the text doesn't itself imply without providing some real evidence which justifies it. You don't. You just inject because it serves your socialist corruption of Scripture to do so.
"4. But again, once he says that, he returns to the more broad, "You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter." DANG, that's harsh. James gives no indication if he's speaking broadly of all wealth (or how wealthy) or some subset of wealthy."
Yes he does. He was clearly and unequivocally referencing employers who "failed to pay the workers". You can't go back and forth as it serves you to do so, though that's typical of how your pervert Scripture to further your socialist, marxist ideology.
------------------------------------------------------------
"5. This is in the context of James' mother, Mary, who sang in her Magnificat,"
What you pervert once again to mean the materially poor without the slightest evidentiary support....like these:
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/was-jesus-born-into-a-poor-family/
https://hjosephlalfakmawia.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/the-lukan-concept-of-anawim-the-poor-and-good-news-to-the-rich-2/
(I have a third I'm still reading, but these alone rebut Dan's socialism well enough.)
"6. Maybe Paul gives it some nuance in his letter to Timothy, where he said:"
Yet he doesn't say a damned thing suggesting all rich people are evil or oppressive, does he, Dan? DOES HE, DAN?? Answer the question and then tell me why it's relevant to quote him here.
When you "seriously and prayerfully" study Scripture, to whom are you praying? I can't see the One True God guiding you so poorly as your constant socialist renderings suggest.
"7. But it's important to understand this through the words of Jesus:"
This is far more irrelevant to the topic of this post then your Paulian citation, which was irrelevant and stupid as well. An employer who denies an employee a raise is not indicted by this passage in any way unless you can draw a distinct and provable line between that denial and a lust for money. On what basis is every request for a raise not itself the result of a lust for money and serving two masters or worse, serving that lust instead of God? Answer that question or admit your citation was stupidly submitted.
"8. And on it goes. Suffice to say, one can't be a biblical literalist and serious about the teachings of Jesus and NOT be worried about having too much wealth as a trap and a source for potential great evil. It's literally what Jesus, Mary, James, Paul and the prophets taught."
First, it doesn't go on like that in the first place. Yours is a stupidly corrupt perversion of the text...a socialist perversion.
Secondly, you haven't demonstrated those of us with a better understanding of the text than you'll ever hope to have (and I'm no scholar!) is in any way confused about the temptations which accompany riches. But morons like you...the truly stupid socialists who exploit the label "Christian" in applying it to yourselves so as to posture as "good"...pretend those same temptations aren't a lure to people from one end of the economic spectrum to the other, and that those who have achieved great wealth are incapable of being true and devoted practitioners of the Christian faith...something about which you have no mature grasp.
Thirdly, you continue to demonstrate an incredible inability to grasp the meaning of what Jesus, Mary, James, Paul and the prophets taught.
Glenn,
I hear ya, Buddy! The USPS is the most egregious example of how unions corrupt the workplace one can imagine. The tales I could tell!!!
One of my sisters worked a common retail location. Her husband was a manager at another. They can add to the stories I could tell. Indeed, years ago (they're both now retired from the USPS) my sister was another example of one who shouldn't have been able to keep her job (she got better). She was constantly taking sick days.
At the Chicago location from which my run originated for most of the 9.5 years I was on the job, I heard from a couple of USPS people that on any given day, 25% of the workforce of that location didn't show up for work. While there were those who put in serious OT hours as often as they'd be allowed to, they accounted for a tiny fraction of the total. When there was a holiday...especially Christmas and New Year's (and they paid for ten of them every year!), it seemed like only 25% showed up...if that.
I honor only those who do the work, and I acknowledge I'm not the best example of such people, though with my experience with the PO, I became a much better employee so as not to be confused with the worthless and pathetic who didn't deserve to be employed at all.
September 26, 2023 at 7:26 PM
Congratulations! You're still a moron. My hypothetical illustrates in the incredible subjectivity of what "a living wage" means to different people based on their personal lives. The employer has no obligation to think in terms of each person he hires, unless you're suggesting he weed out those who would not be sustained to their satisfaction by the wage offered. Only an abject moron would dare suggest that determining wages on such a criteria will lead to success of the business. It's absurd. Typical modern progressive idiocy follows this absurdity. OF COURSE management knows best what a give task is worth in terms of wages and compensation. Some leftist asshat comes in for a broom sweeping job and bitches that $30K per years isn't sufficient, that's to freakin' bad for him. Where does he get off saying that he must be paid more simply because he insists he can't "live" on that wage doing that task? Where the F**K! do YOU get off daring to suggest you can dictate to those who started up a company, with all the sacrifices, expenses and risks necessary to do so, what he should be paying for ANY position in his company??? You're clearly an economic moron!
By your perverse, mentally retarded logic, a person can live life as stupidly as possible, inviting all degree of obligation and because of that stupidity has some kind of right to dictate what a position at a company must pay him to support that stupidity? You're a freakin' shit for brains!!! No business can exist like that and I dare you to start up any business which would require hiring and let the applicants tell YOU what to pay them. It'll be fun to watch you fold within four months at best, you stupid asshole!!
One more thing about the postal union when I was working the letter-sorting-machines. Whenever they decided they should have a short break, someone would put a letter on the chain in the back so when it got to the sensor supposedly protecting the mail the machine would jerk to a stop, snapping a shear pin. SOmetimes the letter/bill/whatever would come out okay but more often it would go halfway around the cog wheel being all torn up. Meanwhile everyone took a chat-break while the maintenance guy cleared the jam and replaced the shear pin.
The new ATC union, NATCA, formed a couple years after the strike, would do everything possible to keep people from washing out of training, and would get people certified who had no business being so. Then, when they had operational errors over and over beause of their incompetence, discharging them was next to impossible. We had one guy who had 3 consecutive errors with the same two planes (getting them too close--both pilots thought they were to blame and so said nothing). One controller working was upset about what she saw so on my next day of work she reported it. I spoke to the pilots, pulled the tapes etc and was able to have the controller decertified to go through training again (couldn't fire them). Well she got married and had to move to CA and transferred to a facility out there. While driving out to CA a semi-truck drive fell asleep, crossed the median and hit her car, killing her. I was acting manager and got the call from her husband so I could notify the CA facility. When the controllers in the tower learned she was dead they cheered. I hate unions.
Art,
Yes, it should have been unlikely.
"I'm not doing or saying anything. My point is not that all who have wealth automatically oppress... as far as that goes. But:"
Sure you are. You're cherry picking out of context passages (not even from Jesus) and attempting to force them into a direct analog of the current labor situation. Let's not forget that the union leaders are also rich, therefore oppressors under your construct.
3. It's nice that you acknowledge that the text doesn't necessarily directly support your conclusion. Yet that doesn't stop you from acting as if it does.
4. Again, you have no actual clue what he's referring to specifically so you just manufacture your own hunch that it means what you say it means.
The rest is just your self serving eisegesis intended to support your hunches about wealth. Unworthy of further response to your regurgitated talking points.
"You accurately recognize the reality that income needs are different for different people in different settings and states."
Obviously this is True, yet the unions are not (to the best of my knowledge) negotiating for a flexible wage scale tied to local costs of living, but rather a nationwide singular pay scale that ignores this reality. In effect, rewarding those who live in low cost of living states. How exactly is this fair?
Finally, this notion that there is some sort of mandate for a "living wage" regardless of any other factors is patently absurd. The fact that there is such insistence that this "living wage" be capable of supporting a family from one 40 hr/wk job is beyond ridiculous.
Craig,
Dan insists the income needs of an unknown amount of disparate situations puts an obligation on employers to provide for those needs, when the task if for those with needs to find a situation which can accommodate those needs as satisfactorily as possible, and barring that possibility, adjusting one's behaviors to meet those needs as best as possible. The employer had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of those needs and it's ludicrous that he's obliged to provide for them. Again, that's not to say lobbying for a better deal is wrong, though it's less wrong if it's wrong at all when it's done at the point of hiring, where income concerns are properly and rightly addressed by responsible applicants. But once one agrees to a compensation package, one is obliged to do the work and any appeals for more must come with the expectation of refusal, and that expectation mustn't assume greed or evil on the part of the employer. What's more, there's also the option of seeking better elsewhere or seeking a second gig.
I'd love that things were as they were when I was a kid, where Dad was the sole bread-winner for his wife and five kids and bills were paid and money saved. Those days might be gone forever, though with the right people running the country, who knows what's possible. Dan and his ilk are absolutely the wrong people to be anywhere near the levers of power. His preference for known clown over a known producer is all the evidence we need of that.
Glenn,
Tales of the USPS are endless. They are the best arguments against unions, and I don't believe we need to do away with unions or collective bargaining. We just need them truly reformed from their criminal ways.
If you want to try to be the "literalist," and yet deny "you rich" means literally, "you rich," perhaps you can offer your rubric for settling when some repeated phrase (for instance, "you rich" in Mary, Jesus, James, Paul and the prophets' words) should not be taken to literally mean "You rich," or, "you, who have wealth," or "you who have great wealth..."?
But no. You all never provide any kind of rubric. Precisely because you don't have one. It's all on a whim, isn't it? Be honest.
I'd love that things were as they were when I was a kid, where Dad was the sole bread-winner for his wife and five kids and bills were paid and money saved.
Well, at least you're honest and straightforwards in your sexism and misogyny.
"Oh, for the good old days when the women knew their place and the white men were on top of it all!"
Lord, have mercy... that you don't even recognize the misogyny of it all.
WHAT IF women don't want to rely upon the "menfolk" to be the "breadwinners..."? What if they say, "To hell with that. I'll be my own breadwinner..."?
Welcome to a more modern, moral and decent society. You've lost this non-debate, son.
September 27, 2023 at 7:51 PM
HA! This is what for Dan passes as a winning tactic!
"If you want to try to be the "literalist," and yet deny "you rich" means literally, "you rich,""
Where did that ever happen? There's no debate about "you rich" meaning "you" (whomever is referenced by the term) "rich" is a rich person or rich persons. That's not at issue. What's at issue is who are the rich about whom James is speaking? Those would be those who didn't pay their workers. That's all the info given, unless you can present evidence which is more specific. Thus, among the rich of James' time, he clearly wasn't speaking of the rich who don't behave in a Christian manner. Unlike your pathetic marxist crap, that's a reasonable inference...that he's speaking of those rich people who acted badly. My "rubric" is the freakin' passage itself, and that's really all I need to demonstrate what a dumbass, marxist liar you are. And I sincerely thank you for providing that "rubric" for me. It makes it so much easier to win a debate against a moron when one allows the moron to post comments!
But who doesn't have evidence that James is speaking of all rich dudes, rich employers or saying anything which speaks of anyone from his time who mirrors those like the GM, UPS or other big corporations which pay great wages but are labeled as meanies for not giving well paid employees even more money? That would be Dumbass Dan...Liar Extraordinaire!!
"Well, at least you're honest and straightforwards in your sexism and misogyny."
Well, at least you're honest and straightforward in twisting an obvious point into something with which you can malign better people! Where in my statement can you honestly insist either sexism or misogyny exists, when my statement doesn't preclude women in the workforce at all, you lying dumbass? Clearly, in light of the discussion and what led to my statement, that statement refers to a time when only one person working was enough to provide for even large families. You have a problem with that, you stupid POS? Explain what's wrong with that or apologize for being yet again, a dickhead.
""Oh, for the good old days when the women knew their place and the white men were on top of it all!""
How nice of you to lie so blatantly and intentionally in presuming to assert this message is somehow an honest inference of my statement. And the racism inherent in your lie is not at all surprising, either, as modern progressives wallow in racism like a pig in shit.
"Lord, have mercy... that you don't even recognize the misogyny of it all."
I recognize your foul, fake Christian persona once again revealing yourself to be the fraud you are by suggesting there's any misogyny at all at play in my statement. Worse, it comes from an asshole who defends and promotes the murder of the conceived yet unborn, at least half of whom are female, the harm abortion does to so many women, including how it has led to more women left pregnant with no man to support her, how it has led to so many women injured and left psychologically and physically harmed and so many other bullshit leftist policies which have led to more women harmed than ever before. You're an abject, card carrying asshole, Dan, and your every post provides more evidence of that fact.
"WHAT IF women don't want to rely upon the "menfolk" to be the "breadwinners..."? What if they say, "To hell with that. I'll be my own breadwinner..."?"
What if you ripped your head out of your ass and stop pretending you're a Christian? Women are free to do what they want to try to do. But it seems you're promoting more problems if a married woman has a man capable of providing insisting she must leave the kids with strangers (if she chooses to even have kids at all) so that she can feel good about herself after taking a vow and having those kids. You're a dickhead who enables other dickheads. Dumbass Dan embraces Dickheadedness!!
"Welcome to a more modern, moral and decent society."
The society we have now??????? You really ARE a dickhead!! This "modern" society is in no way more moral than those of the past, certainly not more decent. Society used to be more aligned with Christian teaching despite its own shortcomings. Now, thanks to leftist assholes like you, evil is good and immorality is moral. Why do you hate God so much? Because you're Dumbass Dan, Liar Extraordinaire, Fake Christian Marxist Asshole.
I really enjoy drunk blogging when morons like Dan show up! What fun! I'm only tipsy at best and he remains no challenge. What a stupid person! What a girlish child of a "man" (I hate using that word to describe a cretin like Dan...it just doesn't seem an appropriate label.)!
Art,
The notion that wages are dictated by the "needs" of the employee, not the reality of the employer is a bizarre one. It has always seemed strange to me that someone would take a job, fully informed about the compensation package, then demand that the compensation package change to suit their "needs".
"But no. You all never provide any kind of rubric. Precisely because you don't have one. It's all on a whim, isn't it? Be honest."
I'll simply note that you've never once provided what you demand we provide, making your demand quite outlandish. The fact that you take this one phrase in a woodenly literal sense, when you apply your flights of fancy to multiple other phrases in scripture, is amusing.
The problem is that you have offered no justification as to why "you rich", should automatically be applied to anyone not being directly addressed. While I'm not being dogmatic (even though you'd like to claim that I am), the problem is that you haven't offered anything beyond your hunch to universalize this phrase.
Dan's ignorace is hysterical.
Tradionally women stayed home and raised the children while the dad went to work, and this is as it should be once children are added to the marriage. But women nowadays just can't be "fulfilled" unless they are working so the family now has the expense of DAY CARE, where so much bad teaching and abuse takes place. God gives children to families to raise and not to palm off on baby-sitters and day care.
My wife worked at the schools once both kids were old enough to go to school. She then had a job bringing in money as she worked as librarian and "lunch lady," all the while being available for our kids if needed!
After kids finished school she still stayed home as the homemaker as our kids got outside work until they left home. Then she still was a homemaker so the house didn't go to pot with both of us working outside the home. I was/am always blessed to have had her at home when I came home from work so we could actually have our life together. Most couples with both working outside the home have little time for each other but, hey, that's misogyny for Dan.
Glenn! What the hell, man!! You're suggesting men and women stick to their God-intended roles in a marriage with children!! How dare you put personal responsibility above personal desire!!!
Craig,
Once again, and I think you'll agree, there's no problem with someone seeking a better situation. When one doesn't ask, the answer is no, so ask away and see what happens. But one might consider coming up with ideas for how one can justify getting more. One can point to length of service, but the employer could say, "Yeah...you've been here ten years but you're no better than you were when hired", or something to that effect, or that length of service has no particular value which justifies additional pay.
Dan's simply doing what as a marxist he always does...demanding others give their stuff away.
Art,
I have no problem at all with employees having a discussion with their employers about compensation and working conditions. Most business owners I know are pragmatic and open to those kinds of discussions. Strangely enough, the one employer I had that was the most resistant to those discussions was an organization that leaned to the left politically. They treated us like crap.
The problem as I see it is that group negotiations almost always benefit the worst employees more than the best. Any time you deal with people as groups rather than individuals, the focus is going to be at the floor, not the ceiling. The APL constantly deals with people as members of groups rather than individuals (I know I just did that, but it's a generalization and sometimes generalizations are helpful). You've probably noticed how often Dan deals with us in the context of his perceptions about what group he puts us in, rather than as individuals.
Absolutely, Craig. Should an employer be closed minded, an employee of great value might choose to leave, even at reduced pay, in order to flourish better elsewhere. Employers have their bottom line in mind at all times. To present one's self as vital to improving that bottom line can't help but persuade an employer to make concessions if he's able to do so. But again, an employer's profit picture for one year doesn't mean he's able to make those concessions, and to expect that an employer, who put in his sacrifices to develop a business which can provide him good years, is not at all beholden to any employee who had been provided what was agreed upon at the point of hiring.
And I can't stress enough how much I believe one has the right to lobby for a better deal. But one can be well worth so much more, yet not be given it due to many factors which are legit impediments to providing more. The modern progressive will simply write it off to greed on the part of the employer with no gracious desire to consider those impediments, because that's what the modern progressive does.
And yes, collective bargaining will indeed benefit the goldbrickers. But an honest attempt by labor reps will allow for the dismissal of such worthless employees as a tradeoff in securing better for the better. I think most employers would be open to such an arrangement. Keeping only the best will serve both sides and spreading the wealth will seem much more agreeable to the employer who was the one to sacrifice so much to be in that position.
Post a Comment