Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Living Wages for Thee...
The workers who clean Baltimore's Camden Yards baseball stadium are planning a hunger strike to protest their $7 per hour wages. The stadium is the largest employer of the city's homeless day laborers. The kicker, though, is that the Maryland legislature recently passed a "living wage" bill, setting the minimum at $11.30 per hour. But while the bill covers any business with state contracts in the Baltimore area, the state government is exempt, and Camden is owned by the state of Maryland.
Such double standards aren't new to the living wage debate. The labor activist group ACORN is largely credited with jump-starting the national living wage movement. But ACORN itself has a notoriously shabby record when it comes to paying its own workers. In fact, not only did the group once sue the state of California to exempt itself from the very living wage it helped the state to pass, ACORN actually used free market critiques of the minimum wage in its brief (ACORN argued that if it had to pay existing workers more, it wouldn't be able to hire more workers).
As for Maryland, this would be the same state that attempted to pass legislation directed solely at Wal-Mart because of the allegedly low wages and benefits Wal-Mart pays its workers. Average starting wage at Wal-Mart: Just under $10 per hour. Average Camden clean-up worker pay: $7 per hour.
|9.6.07 @ 10:57AM|#
It will be interesting to see which way the H&R commenters go on this one. On one side, you have the government. On the other side, you have poor laborers attempting to improve their wages by doing something akin to organizing.
|9.6.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Just the latest example of the rules for thee, not for me mode of thought that's so endemic to governmental policymaking.
:-|9.6.07 @ 11:00AM|#
A hunger strike is not exactly "organizing".
Does that strike include abstinence from 16 oz. malt liquors?
The Extispicator|9.6.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Not difficult to see how H&R commenters will go. Minimum wage is bad for market reasons that we have all hashed over before. Government is generally bad for all the reasons we have hashed over before. This is just another example of hypocrisy. Nothing new.
|9.6.07 @ 11:04AM|#
It will be interesting to see which way the H&R
commenters go on this one. On one side, you have the government. On
the other side, you have poor laborers attempting to improve their
wages by doing something akin to organizing.
I have nothing against those poor stinking drunk hobos. As a matter
of fact, I'd probably give them some money if they'd go march down
the street and burn down the Ravens' (spit) stadium.
|9.6.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Not difficult to see how H&R commenters will go. Minimum
wage is bad for market reasons that we have all hashed over before.
Government is generally bad for all the reasons we have hashed over
before. This is just another example of hypocrisy. Nothing
new.
But also, workers organizing/striking to get more money is bad
(think: unions), at least from the corporatist point of view which
is really what Reason's brand of libertarianism often amounts
to.
|9.6.07 @ 11:07AM|#
I don't think organizing is necessarily anti-libertarian, as
long as the government doesn't take an interest in the
outcome.
Besides, why do I have to choose?
I am opposed to "living wage" laws on principle. I am opposed to
the hypocracy of government exempting itself from laws it passes. I
am clearly pulling for the cleanup guys at Camden Yards, as I might
guess are most of the libertarian regulars here.
Sal Paradise|9.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Come on, Mike. Don't you want to play Dan T's daily False
Dichotomy game?
You have to choose....
|9.6.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Nice mischaracterization there, Dan T.
Unions are fine. Government-protected unions are not. If the
stadium crews can successfully organize without government
intervention, more power to 'em. Baltimore has plenty of street
people, however, so I wouldn't count on it.
BTW, does anyone expect anything remotely libertarian from the land
of Spiro Agnew and William Donald Schaefer? Venezuela will turn
libertarian before Maryland does.
|9.6.07 @ 11:12AM|#
The hypocrisy is disgusting, but I was under the impression that day labor is wholly distinct from having a job you go to everyday.
|9.6.07 @ 11:13AM|#
My veiw is the state should not be building and careing for a place of buisness for a private company.
Minion of URKOBOLD|9.6.07 @ 11:13AM|#
INSTEAD OF STRIKING, TAINT WHITHERING IS A COCKSURE WAY OF GETTING WHAT YOU WANT.
|9.6.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Gotta love how ACORN wants to exempt itself from living wage
legislation.
I fully support the right of day laborers in their attempt to get
higher wages.
I also support the right of any employer, state or otherwise, not
to meet the demands of their employees.
robc|9.6.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Michael Pack gets the win.
Its just like education issues. 99.99% percent of all education
related issues that come up can be solved by privatization. Prayer?
Its a private school, they can do what they want. Teaching
Evolution/Creationism? Its a private school, they can do what they
want. Expelling a kid for pointing his finger and saying bang? Its
a private ... you get my point.
Ditto here. The issue isnt an issue if the state didnt own the
freaking stadium.
|9.6.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Unions are fine. Government-protected unions are
not.
But unions generally only work with government protection -
otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example. It's kind
of hard to see why the government would not have a legitimate
interest in balancing the rights of the workers with those of the
business owners.
|9.6.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Its just like education issues. 99.99% percent of all
education related issues that come up can be solved by
privatization. Prayer? Its a private school, they can do what they
want. Teaching Evolution/Creationism? Its a private school, they
can do what they want. Expelling a kid for pointing his finger and
saying bang? Its a private ... you get my point.
It's unclear how simply saying "they can do what they want" solves
many of the problems you illustrate. And privitization of schools
causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
|9.6.07 @ 11:23AM|#
I'm a libertarian, but support minimum wages, as long as we are going to allow semi-open immigration, which I'm also for. As a felon who is basically disallowed by government to have a job that isn't minimum wage (drug conviction), then I would be pretty fucked without min wage. If the government would stop the eternal ass fucking of drug felons and let us work at something other than bottom of the barrel jobs, where I wouldn't have to compete with foreign unskilled labor, then I may change my mind. Until then, a reasonable minimum wage is the only way I can stay legal. Without it...and even with it half the time, the only way I can keep from starving is by selling the illegal plant matter for which I was convicted. Of course, my situation may not describe every near min wage worker, but there's a fucking lot of us.
|9.6.07 @ 11:27AM|#
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only
people with money can afford them.
Vouchers?
|9.6.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Vouchers are a form of welfare, which libertarians really should not be in favor of. You've still got one person's taxes paying for another person's education, with the added problem of the inflation of private school tuitions due to the artificial demand.
robc|9.6.07 @ 11:35AM|#
It's unclear how simply saying "they can do what they want"
solves many of the problems you illustrate.
Because if it isnt my kids school, it isnt my problem. And if my
kids school doesnt meet my criteria, I can take them elsewhere. Its
the ultimate Dan T solution, if you dont like the laws (rules of
the school), move (enroll at different one). Unlike for
governments, for schools, I agree with you.
Disclosure: Those are hypothetical kids, I dont have any of my own.
However, I plan to home school anyway if I ever do have any,
subject to approval of my non-existent wife.
2nd Disclosure: The last time I attended a private school was
kindergarten. 1st grade thru grad school were all government
schools.
|9.6.07 @ 11:38AM|#
I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars to that worthless, lazy stinking welfare queen Art Modell and is partner in crime Peter Angelos yet can't come up with a few extra bucks for the people who clean the stadium.
|9.6.07 @ 11:39AM|#
Dancing away my hunger pangs. Moving my feet so my stomach won't hurt. I'm kind of like Jesus, but not in the sacrilegious way.
|9.6.07 @ 11:43AM|#
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only
people with money can afford them.
Patrick Henry used that argument against privatization of the
church. Boy did that turn out a mess for the poor. Every single one
of them unwashed heathens banging pathetically on the doors of the
few churches run by the rich.
That's probably also why Reason never has
features
about private schools in the poorest areas of the world.
|9.6.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Because if it isnt my kids school, it isnt my
problem.
I suppose this is where we differ. I tend to feel that it's in my
best interest that people not directly descendant from me also have
access to education. If for no other reason than I don't want any
of them stealing my car when they're older.
|9.6.07 @ 11:46AM|#
"I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of
Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars..."
Let me guess -- they justified it by saying it would create jobs,
right?
What do I win?
|9.6.07 @ 11:49AM|#
You've still got one person's taxes paying for another
person's education, with the added problem of the inflation of
private school tuitions due to the artificial demand.
Agreed. This is precisely the kind of half-way regulation that
libertarian pragmatists think will eventually get government out of
the school business, but will more likely get us a school system
that we're as happy with as our half-governmental oil industry and
our half-governmental healthcare industry. They have almost all the
disadvantages of a government run system, yet all the blame is
conveniently placed at the feet of the free market.
So, you get a crappy system and increased spurious criticism of
capitalism.
|9.6.07 @ 11:54AM|#
I agree with Dan T. That's why I always say, "The safest place to park your car is across the street from a public school."
|9.6.07 @ 11:59AM|#
"I guess what is disgusting about this is that the State of
Maryland saw fit to give 100s of millions of dollars..."
Let me guess -- they justified it by saying it would create jobs,
right?
What do I win?"
A lousy $7 an hour job that doesn't meet minimum wage requirments
picking up trash at a stadium. You to can go pick up trash in order
to get some of your tax money back that the State of Maryland stole
from you to give to Art Modell. All you have to do is come and pick
up Art's trash.
|9.6.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I fully support the right of day laborers in their attempt to get higher wages.
I also support the right of any employer, state or otherwise, not to meet the demands of their employees.
Lurker Kurt is obviously one of those uncaring free minds/free
markets types. He thinks that adults should be free to make their
own decisions, free to associate, etc. To the stockade with
him!
|9.6.07 @ 12:02PM|#
The kicker, though, is that the Maryland legislature
recently passed a "living wage" bill, setting the minimum at $11.30
per hour. But while the bill covers any business with state
contracts in the Baltimore area, the state government is exempt,
and Camden is owned by the state of Maryland.
Maryland's living wage law only applies to businesses that sign
contracts with the state that are worth at least $100,000 and has
several exemptions. The fact that employees directly hired by the
state are not covered by this law doesn't have much to do with
anything - Maryland is just spelling out the conditions under which
it is willing to do business with certain contractors. Which you'd
expect. Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that
Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then
exempting itself from that law.
|9.6.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Sorta reminds me of the Swedish tax commercial filmed in
Estonia, because the cost of producing it in Sweden was too high,
because of the taxes?
Shameless hypocrisy? At least the blonds have big boobies...
|9.6.07 @ 12:05PM|#
As a felon who is basically disallowed by government to have a job that isn't minimum wage (drug conviction), then I would be pretty fucked without min wage. If the government would stop the eternal ass fucking of drug felons and let us work at something other than bottom of the barrel jobs, where I wouldn't have to compete with foreign unskilled labor, then I may change my mind. Until then, a reasonable minimum wage is the only way I can stay legal. Without it...and even with it half the time, the only way I can keep from starving is by selling the illegal plant matter for which I was convicted. Of course, my situation may not describe every near min wage worker, but there's a fucking lot of us.
Please send a copy of the above to your drug warrior of choice.
carrick|9.6.07 @ 12:08PM|#
It's kind of hard to see why the government would not have a
legitimate interest in balancing the rights of the workers with
those of the business owners.
It's kind of hard to see why the government should have
any legitimate interest in balancing the rights of the
workers with those of the business owners.
I've given up any hope of swaying you in any way. Because when it
comes down to it we are arguing about fundamental philosophical
views here.
But be clear, just because you can't see a world without government
sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life,
doesn't mean everyone feels that way. And your point of view
represents a life of government tyranny to those of us that don't
agree with you.
|9.6.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Let me guess -- they justified it by saying it would create jobs, right?
What do I win?
Nothing, too damned easy.
|9.6.07 @ 12:12PM|#
But unions generally only work with government protection -
otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
That's because they generally have a vested interest in
counter-productive make-work policies which adversely affect other
peoples' ability to get jobs by raising wages above the market rate
(as opposed to raising them through increasing productivity).
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only
people with money can afford them.
*Annoying buzzer sound*
That's incorrect, Dan T.. Private schools typically spend only a
fraction of what is spent in public schools and typically generate
superior results.
For example, in India, the government spends an average of 1000
rupees/month on public schools. Meanwhile, schools for the poor
typically spend 200-250 rupees/month and generate superior
results.
|9.6.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then exempting itself from that law.
Did Dan t. really post something this stupid or was in an
imposter?
|9.6.07 @ 12:16PM|#
I've given up any hope of swaying you in any way. Because
when it comes down to it we are arguing about fundamental
philosophical views here.
But be clear, just because you can't see a world without government
sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life,
doesn't mean everyone feels that way. And your point of view
represents a life of government tyranny to those of us that don't
agree with you.
I agree that we have a pretty fundamental difference in views here,
but I think you get carried away when my opinion that government
should protect unions suddenly becomes "tyranny" and "government
sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private life".
There's nothing "private" about the marketplace and I would think
that the government ensuring a balance between the powerful and the
powerless would enhance freedom and prevent tyranny. Certainly
earning a fair wage and being compensated for overtime and injuries
doesn't seem like tyranny to those who work for a living.
|9.6.07 @ 12:18PM|#
That's incorrect, Dan T.. Private schools typically spend
only a fraction of what is spent in public schools and typically
generate superior results.
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public schools
have to deal with problems that private schools can simply
dismiss away.
|9.6.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that
Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then
exempting itself from that law.
Did Dan t. really post something this stupid or was in an
imposter?
Are you saying that it's stupid because Mr. Balko wasn't implying
that? Because the part about the employment law is fact. Maryland
is not a contractor for Maryland.
carrick|9.6.07 @ 12:22PM|#
but I think you get carried away when my opinion that
government should protect unions suddenly becomes "tyranny" and
"government sticking its nose in just about every aspect of private
life".
You have never made a post on any subject that did not come down in
favor of the state taking a hand in fixing the problem to some
level or other.
So I believe that "government sticking its nose in just about every
aspect of private life" is a reasonably accurate (and notably
hostile) summary of your political philosophy.
|9.6.07 @ 12:22PM|#
A living wage is bad. But this involves PETER F-ing ANGELOS, the
abestos pimp and worst owner in the history of Major league
Baseball ( well maybe Selig is, but more for his other role than
ownership one).
ANY criticism of Peter Angelos is nice. I'll look the other way on
this one.
|9.6.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public
schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply
dismiss away.
Having been screamed at and sent into tears by a public school
teacher who didn't care about "my problems" with math, I find that
absurd.
|9.6.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I really see no comparision to public scools.This is like the state building a factory for Ford then paying for the janitors.Pro sports teams and the players are welfare queens.
x,y|9.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Vouchers are a form of welfare, which libertarians really
should not be in favor of. You've still got one person's taxes
paying for another person's education, with the added problem of
the inflation of private school tuitions due to the artificial
demand.
Dan T., sometimes, like this, you can say thoughtful things and add
to the discussion. Please keep it up.
|9.6.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Sure - they can pick and choose who they admit. Public
schools have to deal with problems that private schools can simply
dismiss away.
Further on that point:
The relative uselessness of the public school system for
training manual labor is demonstrated by the fascinating work of
MIND, a private educational service now operated by the Corn
Products Refining Com pany of Greenwich, Connecticut. MIND
deliberately chose high-school dropouts who were unskilled for
manual jobs, and in a few short weeks, using intensive training and
teaching machines, was able to teach these dropouts basic skills
and typing, and place them in corporate jobs. Ten years of public
schooling had taught these youngsters less than a few weeks of
private, job-oriented training! Allowing youngsters to drop out
from enforced dependency into becoming independent and self-sup
porting could only have immeasurable benefits for the youngsters
them selves and for the rest of society.
From Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty.
Sorry for the lengthy threadjack.
|9.6.07 @ 12:46PM|#
...worst owner in the history of Major league
Baseball
I think the Tribune Company is also in the running.
|9.6.07 @ 12:49PM|#
It's unclear how simply saying "they can do what they want" solves many of the problems you illustrate.
It depends. If you are the type that says "I don't want my kids to
be forced to practice someone elses religion", then it solves the
problem nicely. You choose to send your kids to a secular school,
other people send their kids to a religious school.
If you are the authoritarian type of person, you will say "I want
every child to be forced to recieve an education according to my
values". It doesn't solve the problem for you, because your problem
is how to force everyone to live how you want them to live.
You are an authoritarian, so it is highly disturbing to you that
some people might want to choose a different lifestyle or education
program than yourself.
And privitization of schools causes one big problem: only people with money can afford them.
You mean like only people with money can afford churches?
I suppose this is where we differ. I tend to feel that it's in my best interest that people not directly descendant from me also have access to education. If for no other reason than I don't want any of them stealing my car when they're older.
But your irrational view comes from your belief that the government
is benevolent and omnipotent.
1) You are assuming that a government operated educational system
means that people who are not your decendants will receive an
education. Many institutions that are called "public schools" don't
provide any real education. Either the government is incapable of
providing education to everyone, or has an interest in seeing many
kids not get an education. Either way, under the current system,
people who can't afford a private education, or afford to live in
an expensive neighborhood, don't recieve an education.
2) You are assuming that government is the only possible way to
fund free education for those who can't afford it. There are any
number of economic models for providing education to every child,
that don't involve forcing parents to pay to send their kids to
government indoctrination centers.
|9.6.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Public schools have to deal with problems that private
schools can simply dismiss away.
If I owned a privated school, I would look at the problem children
as an opportunity.
"Look parents! I took these 'problem children'
the state considered 'uneducatable' and they are now reading and
writing at their appropriate age level!!"
I believe, around 10 years ago, the Catholic Church offered to take
the bottom 10% of NYC students into their system if they got the
per pupil funds.
Strangely enough, the educrats in NYC declined the Catholic
Church's offer.
|9.6.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Mr. Balko is stretching things a little by implying that Marylands' government is passing an employment law and then exempting itself from that law.
Did Dan t. really post something this stupid or was in an imposter?
Are you saying that it's stupid because Mr. Balko wasn't implying that? Because the part about the employment law is fact. Maryland is not a contractor for Maryland.
Of course he was implying that Maryland passed a law and exempted
itself. They did. If you can't see that, there's no hope for your
intellectual developement.
|9.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#
If you are the authoritarian type of person, you will say "I
want every child to be forced to recieve an education according to
my values". It doesn't solve the problem for you, because your
problem is how to force everyone to live how you want them to
live.
One of the main reasons some of the first advocates of public
schools were Calvinist puritans, and the first american public
schools were set up in massachussetts by the same.
They rightly perceived public schools as what they are: vehicles
for indoctrination/training for mass obedience by the state.
A quote from Martin Luther:
Dear rulers. I maintain that the civil authorities are under
obligation to compel the people to send their children to school.
If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military
service to bear spear and rifle, to mount ramparts, and perform
other martial duties in time of war, how much more has it a right
to the people to send their children to school, because in this
case we are warring with the devil, whose object it is secretly to
exhaust our cities and principalities.
highnumber|9.6.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Dan T.,
General comment:
A lot of the misgivings that you have about libertarians have been
addressed in detail by libertarian intellectuals over the years.
H&R commenters, as great a bunch as we are, are not the
intellectuals of the movement. I recommend that you read some of
the biggies:
Mises,
Hayek,
Rothbard,
Friedman,
etc.,
and those who have built on their work.
I'm not saying you don't ever have good questions - often they are,
and they're dismissed offhandedly by people who cannnot answer them
- but answers are available, if you really want them.
|9.6.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Problem is, public schools ain't public.If I tried to enroll in an algebra class, 'cause I never figured it out, back, oh, so many years ago, I wouldn't be allowed. I'd be barred 'cause my presence would be disruptive. One is allowed to pay for the school but one is not allowed to attend. The public library, on the other hand, is public, within certain guidelines. Public schools, as we know them, use force to insure that they have "customers", the library and Wal-mart don't have to, apparently.
|9.6.07 @ 2:21PM|#
I'm not saying you don't ever have good questions - often
they are, and they're dismissed offhandedly by people who cannnot
answer them - but answers are available, if you really want
them.
Thanks. I will check some of those out.
|9.6.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Of course he was implying that Maryland passed a law and
exempted itself. They did. If you can't see that, there's no hope
for your intellectual developement.
As an analogy, let's say that I decided that I would not hire any
contractor to work on my house who drinks beer on the job. Yet,
sometimes I drink beer myself while working on home improvement
projects.
I don't think this means that I "exempted myself" from a policy
regarding who I want to do business with. Or if it does, it is a
rather meaningless distinction.
|9.6.07 @ 2:36PM|#
But unions generally only work with government protection -
otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
By "free rider problem", Dan T., do you mean "people who don't like
labor unions, and who feel they can do better negotiating directly
with their employer, choosing not to join the labor union"? How's
that a "problem"? Because if you phrase it accurately, you can see
why, even with all the government compulsion, the unionized private
labor force is down to 7% and dropping.
|9.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Dan T,we'er talking about a goverment making a law telling others how to behave and not following the same.What you do at home and how you hire your help doesn't matter.
|9.6.07 @ 2:45PM|#
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual will
realize that he can get the benefits of the collective bargaining
without having to join the union and thus pay the dues. Obviously,
once enough people realize this you won't have a union at all
because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while others
reap the benefits.
It has nothing to do with the kind of skilled jobs where people can
successfully negotiate directly. Those jobs don't lend well to
unions in the first place.
|9.6.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Dan T,we'er talking about a goverment making a law telling
others how to behave and not following the same.What you do at home
and how you hire your help doesn't matter.
I'm in agreement that for the most part the government shouldn't be
involved in individual, private decisions and actions.
However, in an employment/contract situation you've expanded the
context away from a private matter into once where multiple people
are involved. And the government does have a legitimate (IMO)
interest in making sure those relationships are conducted in such a
manner that both sides are treated fairly.
|9.6.07 @ 2:53PM|#
If the law is so unfair the goverment does not abide by it then it is not just.This looks like a case of punishing certain buisness's to gain vote's.I say the law is an ass.
carrick|9.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual
will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective
bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues.
Obviously, once enough people realize this you won't have a union
at all because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while
others reap the benefits.
Unions merely internalize the free rider problem. The union forces
the employer to treat all employees the same regardless of
individual performance. Under-performing individuals reap the same
benefits as over-achievers. Once this becomes obvious, everyone
devolves to the lowest common denominator (no one wants to be the
sucker that works harder than the worst performer on the crew).
|9.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues.
Why do unions need to collect dues?
|9.6.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Not necessarily - there's nothing inherant about a collective
bargaining agreement that states that all employees must be treated
the same.
The NFL, for example, is a unionized business and top players get
paid a whole lot more than lesser ones.
|9.6.07 @ 3:18PM|#
The Free Rider problem basically states that an individual
will realize that he can get the benefits of the collective
bargaining without having to join the union and thus pay the dues.
Obviously, once enough people realize this you won't have a union
at all because nobody will want to be the sucker who pays while
others reap the benefits.
Dan T., you're assuming that the hardest working, most productive
people will "benefit" from being paid the same as everyone else,
and being criticized for being hard working and making everyone
else look bad, just because over half of the workers in their place
of employment voted to unionize. Such people view being forced into
a union and paying dues as a huge imposition that makes them worse
off. One of the many reasons that public schools suck is that there
is no financial incentive for a teacher to strive to do better than
their unionized counterparts. Competition usually causes
improvements, and compulsory unionization dramatically cuts down on
competition between workers.
|9.6.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Dan, pick a nominal case and not an exceptional
one.
Is it normal for all people in a union shop to be paid the same? I
confess that I do not know. But I would think that being part of a
union does not necessarily preclude performance-based incentives
for individual employees if they're negotiated into the CBA.
carrick|9.6.07 @ 3:33PM|#
The union forces the employer to treat all
employees the same regardless of individual performance.
Where did I say "pay"?
But I would think that being part of a union does not
necessarily preclude performance-based incentives for individual
employees if they're negotiated into the CBA.
Base pay is typically a function of seniority, not peformance. And
the CBA most commonly defines the percentage increase in pay that
everyone will get for the duration of the contract. Individual
performance evaluation is highly discouraged if not forbidden
outright.
The CBA also provides severe punishments for any non-union employee
caught doing any work covered by the CBA, while making it extremely
difficult to terminate someone even for acts of willful misconduct
let alone poor performance.
Since you are from NC, we will forgive you for not having extensive
contact with strong union environments.
|9.6.07 @ 4:06PM|#
carrick, it seems to me that your complaints about unions are that with one in place, a company can't get its employees to work as hard as what they'd like and can't pay them as little as what they'd like. So yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such an arrangment.
Mike Laursen|9.6.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Minimum wage is bad for market reasons that we have all
hashed over before.
The libertarian argument should include the subtlety that the
typical minimum wage is set so close to market wages that economic
studies show inconclusive results about whether minimum wage laws
cause unemployment. However, if "living wages", which are like
minimum wages on Wheaties, ever become widespread, the unemployment
effects should be very obvious.
Mike Laursen|9.6.07 @ 4:13PM|#
a company can't get its employees to work as hard as what
they'd like
Is that always a bad thing? An employer does need a certain level
of hard work from its employees to make the company
successful.
and can't pay them as little as what they'd like
Actually, carrick was also arguing for the ability to pay chosen
employees as much as the employer would like.
carrick|9.6.07 @ 4:15PM|#
So yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such
an arrangment.
And consumers . . .
And shareholders . . .
And non-union labor . . .
Mike Laursen|9.6.07 @ 4:19PM|#
But unions generally only work with government protection -
otherwise you have the free rider problem, for example.
So, we rule out the idea that unions are motivated by the
altruistic goal of making working conditions better for everyone.
Otherwise, why would they care if there are free riders?
|9.6.07 @ 4:33PM|#
"""Because the part about the employment law is fact. Maryland
is not a contractor for Maryland."""
Maybe this is wrong on my part but doesn't the living wage law
apply to all employers in the state of Maryland and isn't Maryland
an employer? If your an employee and your entitled to X amount of
pay in the state of Maryland by law, how would those that work for
Maryland not be an employee within Maryland's jurisiction?
|9.6.07 @ 5:09PM|#
carrick, it seems to me that your complaints about unions
are that with one in place, a company can't get its employees to
work as hard as what they'd like and can't pay them as little as
what they'd like. So yes, I do understand why businesses would not
like such an arrangment.
Dan T., if a union was in place, but workers were allowed to opt
out, why would a worker choose to opt out unless they felt
they were better off outside the union? In effect,
compulsory inclusion of everyone once a union is formed is a way
for the marginal employees to profit at the expense of the better
employees.
So, compulsory unionization harms businesses, consumers,
shareholders, non-union workers, and quite possibly the majority of
the unionized workers. Gee, I can't understand why the private
sector union work force is at 7% and dropping ...
|9.6.07 @ 5:49PM|#
o yes, I do understand why businesses would not like such an arrangment.
Dan T,
I was a member of a union. The union was totally oblivious to any
of our concerns and pretty much universally loathed by all the
workers, and took a chunk of our paycheck for wages that weren't
any different from non-union workers.
The only time we ever even saw a union official was when they
arrived to make sure we were registered to vote and that we would
vote for the Democrat they told us to vote for.
Union members hate unions - most join because membership is
required by the government and they have no choice. That is why
only 7% of American workers are members of unions, and why union
membership is dimishing.
Modern unions exist as a way for the government to force workers to
involuntarily fund the Democratic party.
lunchstealer|9.6.07 @ 6:21PM|#
I do recall a similar bit of hypocricy from the AFT. Back around
the time of the UPS strike the AFL/CIO types were up in arms about
'temporary' workers being retained in permanent slots, so that
companies wouldn't have to provide benefits.
At the time my brother (another H&R poster) was working for the
AFT. He was a temp worker. His position was permanent, but they
just used temp workers to fill the role, because it was
cheaper.
|9.7.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Maybe this is wrong on my part but doesn't the living wage law
apply to all employers in the state of Maryland and isn't Maryland
an employer? If your an employee and your entitled to X amount of
pay in the state of Maryland by law, how would those that work for
Maryland not be an employee within Maryland's
jurisiction?
No, in this case the living wage law only applies to businesses
that contract with the state. It does not mean that literally every
job in the state of Maryland pays $11.30 an hour.
That was my intital complaint with Mr. Balko's blog entry, as it
implied otherwise.
|9.7.07 @ 10:36AM|#
What is this living wage garbage? How about working 2 jobs
instead of paying someone $11 per hour to push a broom.
Some college educated employees, such as engineering technicians or
field scientists start at between $13 and $15 per hour.
What is wrong with this picture?
Clayton E. Cramer|9.7.07 @ 1:09PM|#
ACORN isn't the only leftist operation that wants laws that it
won't follow itself. Back in the late 1970s, the Campaign for
Economic Democracy (Hayden and Fonda's operation) was demanding a
raise in the minimum wage--but they weren't paying their workers a
minimum wage. Why? They were a non-profit, and thus exempt from
California law for that reason.
If the left really wanted to do something to alleviate the misery
of the poor, they would be shutting off the spigot that supplies
vast quantities of poorly educated illegal aliens. But that
wouldn't do anything for their campaign against capitalism.
|9.7.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Dan T - Your "free rider" problem is a crock. If a union can get a company to freely agree to hire only members of the union, they can enforce dues. The real reason that unions fail without government favoritism is that a company can simply fire the union workers and hire nonunion workers.
|9.7.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Just shows what progressives' are best at: bitching at/about
everyone else's selfish behavior while exempting their own. i.e.
kennedy and the wind farms off 'HIS' precious coast, the bitching
about lack of funds and proper treatment for veterns at V.A.
hospitals and then locking up $4 billion worth of V.A. land so they
can't use it to help veterans, setting up depatments which can
investigate anyone except alderman who passed the law, etc etc etc
ad naseum.
But hypocrisy is something they always look for in others so they
can bitch in their arrogantly we're the only moral ones
mentality.
|9.7.07 @ 3:38PM|#
this is a little inaacurate:
the rules giving a living wage at $9+ per hour are passed by the
city of baltimore for contracts for the city. ts other than service
hey dont apply to any other contracts other than service contracts
between batrlimore city and its own workers
they are totaly separte from the regular minimum wage laws whethter
local federal or state
why should the state have to comply with the citys rules for
service conrracts involving the citys emplyees? what on earth does
that have to do with the state....
it was NOT a bill in the MD legislature passed by MD
it does NOT apply to 'all service contrats"
the city ordiance is here:
http://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/charterandcodes/Code/Art%2005%20-%20Finance.pdf
MD has other applicable laws of course...but its just not like what
your saying
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245