Organized Labor

[Renton]

This is just wrong, especially at the bottom rung of employment. An employee inherently has a greater interest in individually staying employed than an employer has in having an individual employee remain in his employ. This is what I was getting at when I asked Renton if he believed the parties were on equal footing in regards to bargaining power. High turn over is detrimental to most business models (but it's very important to note that some business models thrive off of this typically caustic variable), however the negative consequences are seen over months and years, and often the symptoms are never matched to this cause. The employer simply thinks "I can't find any good help!" Conversely, the effects on the employee of losing his job is immediate and devastating. Further, stinted work history always reflects poorly on the worker, yet there is no equitable counterpart wherein the employer suffers.


I don't have much time now, been busy this week so I haven't got to really dig into this, but I'd also like to touch on how an employer can make an example of an employee to whip his staff into line, but employees have no way to parry except, of course, unionizing.


With the speed at which information travels and the relatively high mobility of the workforce, things have gotten a ton better, but to claim employee abuse is nonexistent today is hyperbolic, dishonest, or both.

Well your original question was do they have equal bargaining power. That doesn't mean the same thing as "do they have equal power." The employer-employee relationship is not equal in the micro sense, nor should it be. The employee enters a voluntary contract to do work for the employer and to comply with his rules or standards. If such standards are unreasonable or if he finds them demeaning or whatever, he reserves the right so seek employment elsewhere. This provides an incentive for employers to treat people fairly and provide amenities and benefits to them. Also, as such amenities and benefits have costs, this is equivalent to increasing the employee's pay, which they also have a lot of incentive to do in a free market.


I guess it seems like employers have an advantage over employees because they do, and they should. Employers are essentially consumers of labor, and like how consumers in markets have great power and influence over sellers and products being sold, employers have such influence over employees. They demand a standard for the price they pay and a standard is provided. This benefits everyone.


Regarding bottom rung employment, there should be high turnover here. There should be low pay, and low benefits. The bottom rung employee should have more interest in keeping his job than the employer should in having a steady person. This is because the supply of lower-skill workers is often high compared with the demand for them. It's also because bottom rung jobs are meant to be transient. I know you don't want us to go back to the regulations stuff, but thats inevitably the liberal's solution to this problem, and it must be addressed. Any intervention to increase the pay, benefits, or treatment of these people will exacerbate the problems therein, as those all would introduce costs and thus reduce the demand for bottom rung labor even further. The shortage of jobs next to the supply is a constant here, it cannot be changed except to be worsened.



It all goes back to a basic problem of looking at labor as this much different thing. It's natural to do this, and I think that the vast majority of left leaning ideology is coming from a well-intentioned and humanitarian point of view. That is probably why it is the prevailing sentiment in the western world. But it doesn't change the fact that almost every policy these people try to enact has the reverse effect on the very people they intend to rescue.

[sah_24]

Well your original question was do they have equal bargaining power. That doesn't mean the same thing as "do they have equal power." The employer-employee relationship is not equal in the micro sense, nor should it be. The employee enters a voluntary contract to do work for the employer and to comply with his rules or standards. If such standards are unreasonable or if he finds them demeaning or whatever, he reserves the right so seek employment elsewhere. This provides an incentive for employers to treat people fairly and provide amenities and benefits to them. Also, as such amenities and benefits have costs, this is equivalent to increasing the employee's pay, which they also have a lot of incentive to do in a free market.


I guess it seems like employers have an advantage over employees because they do, and they should. Employers are essentially consumers of labor, and like how consumers in markets have great power and influence over sellers and products being sold, employers have such influence over employees. They demand a standard for the price they pay and a standard is provided. This benefits everyone.


Regarding bottom rung employment, there should be high turnover here. There should be low pay, and low benefits. The bottom rung employee should have more interest in keeping his job than the employer should in having a steady person. This is because the supply of lower-skill workers is often high compared with the demand for them. It's also because bottom rung jobs are meant to be transient. I know you don't want us to go back to the regulations stuff, but thats inevitably the liberal's solution to this problem, and it must be addressed. Any intervention to increase the pay, benefits, or treatment of these people will exacerbate the problems therein, as those all would introduce costs and thus reduce the demand for bottom rung labor even further. The shortage of jobs next to the supply is a constant here, it cannot be changed except to be worsened.



It all goes back to a basic problem of looking at labor as this much different thing. It's natural to do this, and I think that the vast majority of left leaning ideology is coming from a well-intentioned and humanitarian point of view. That is probably why it is the prevailing sentiment in the western world. But it doesn't change the fact that almost every policy these people try to enact has the reverse effect on the very people they intend to rescue.

Sooo much this !

[boost]

Regarding bottom rung employment, there should be high turnover here. There should be low pay, and low benefits. The bottom rung employee should have more interest in keeping his job than the employer should in having a steady person. This is because the supply of lower-skill workers is often high compared with the demand for them. It's also because bottom rung jobs are meant to be transient. I know you don't want us to go back to the regulations stuff, but thats inevitably the liberal's solution to this problem, and it must be addressed. Any intervention to increase the pay, benefits, or treatment of these people will exacerbate the problems therein, as those all would introduce costs and thus reduce the demand for bottom rung labor even further. The shortage of jobs next to the supply is a constant here, it cannot be changed except to be worsened.



It all goes back to a basic problem of looking at labor as this much different thing. It's natural to do this, and I think that the vast majority of left leaning ideology is coming from a well-intentioned and humanitarian point of view. That is probably why it is the prevailing sentiment in the western world. But it doesn't change the fact that almost every policy these people try to enact has the reverse effect on the very people they intend to rescue.

Sure, fine, but why do these chats always have to be framed within this left/right policy dichotomy?

Also, what could you even possibly mean with the notion that the employee has equal bargaining power but not equal power? Of course they don't both have the same powers, but I can't imagine that's the distinction you're making, since it's beyond obvious. So, are you going back on your claim of equal bargaining power, or..?

Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility. While I think this is probably true, I don't think it's enough to just say so and be content with any level of lesser mobility. Social mobility has a stabilizing effect on societies, and ignoring this is to cherry pick variables to tell the story you want to hear.

[wufwugy]

Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility.

I think his point suggests the opposite. Low-skill work with high turnover rates can be benefits for upward mobility. The employees can take advantage of the turnover and low-skill levels by applying skill and consistency -- essentially by being better employees. Restaurant work is a great example of this. Both front and back of house jobs are considered low-skill and have huge turnover, but we both know from experience, there's a lot of room for good employees to succeed. A good busser or hostess can move into serving, a good server can move into better shifts or bartending. Good cooks get better wages, better shifts, and choice of stations. These jobs end up paying an amount of money that if you want to move into a different industry, you should be able to apply yourself and get an education while earning a living wage.

The same exists for virtually every job I can think of. When we hear about all the low wage Walmart workers, I don't think we're getting an accurate story. It doesn't account for the much lower living standards of the region and it is likely cherry picking the workers that just don't work that hard. The caveat to this, however, is if somebody truly does have a tough time making things better due to time consuming stressors like children. But this is an addressable problem and most people who don't utiliize upward mobility aren't hindered by it

BTW I don't mean to make it a left vs right thing. My alignment is all of the above

[Renton]

Sure, fine, but why do these chats always have to be framed within this left/right policy dichotomy?

Also, what could you even possibly mean with the notion that the employee has equal bargaining power but not equal power? Of course they don't both have the same powers, but I can't imagine that's the distinction you're making, since it's beyond obvious. So, are you going back on your claim of equal bargaining power, or..?

Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility. While I think this is probably true, I don't think it's enough to just say so and be content with any level of lesser mobility. Social mobility has a stabilizing effect on societies, and ignoring this is to cherry pick variables to tell the story you want to hear.

I'm saying that prior to entering into the employment agreement, the employee has equal footing with the employer in bargaining for his wages and benefits. He doesn't have free rein to make unreasonable demands, but in a market where his there's a demand for his work, he should be able to secure a salary that is in the near vicinity of the prices deemed by the market for such work. Once he enters that agreement, however, it becomes a superior-subordinate relationship. So the employer has the right to do all those awful things you were talking about in your post, and the employee has the right to accept such treatment or leave. As long as none of this violates the non-aggression principle this is fine. While such tyrannical employers invariably exist from time to time, they shouldn't exist for long because any good employer knows the value of a happy employee, and is thus more likely to prevail among competitors.

Further, you are essentially saying that the lower rung of labor should have decreased social mobility.

I'm not saying he should have decreased social mobility. I'm saying he has decreased social mobility, and there's not much that can be done to change this. And anyway it really just depends on which bottom rung job you're talking about. An unpaid or poorly-paid internship carries tremendous social mobility, as it builds skills and experience in an often highly-paid trade. A McDonald's fry cook provides medium social mobility, as you have a pretty good shot at McDonald's middle management if you work at it long enough. A sweatshop worker provides nearly none, as it is repetitive grunt work that builds no skill whatsoever. But none of that matters too much because these jobs will exist regardless, there's a demand for them and an even bigger supply for them. That is why they are shitty jobs and not great jobs.

Social mobility may have a stabilizing effect on societies, but I'm unconvinced that policy is or has ever achieved this. This is very hard to prove one way or the other because its all hypothetical, the only modern world we know is one in which employers are penalized heavily for daring to run a business and hire people for jobs.

Would there be more social mobility if it weren't for the tax on corporations that is in effect levied on the employees of these corporations? Would there be more social mobility it it weren't for the social security tax that employers supposedly pay 50% of but every study has shown that they basically just pass the bill to the employee? Would there be more social mobility if it weren't for public funding of higher education which most of us could agree is far more used by the middle class than the poor, even as the poorer people pay a greater percentage of their earnings to the state sales taxes used to fund these institutions?

Probably.