Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: | |||
Sorry, I'm just not convinced that unions are the "end-all be-all" solution for retail workers... |
|||
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Georgia
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: | |
| What's a living wage? Is a living wage a dollar amount? I dunno...all I can say is I was making $3.70 an hour and about $50 extra a week in 1977, had a house, a new car and paid all my bills on time. Was that a living wage??? Hell yes it was! Maybe you ought to remember the "Great Society" years of Lyndon Johnson..that was the beginning of the end. | |
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 2801
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: | |
|
That's it, That's your rebuttal? That's your answer? I can tell you a living wage is not "Minimum wage"! And it's not part time!
In 1977 I made $2.15 an hour $86.00 a week.......Yep, That was minimum wage then! I eaked out a living by living in a repossessed trailer in a trailer park, I had sheets on my windows, my furniture was from the American rescue workers, My end tables and coffee table were cement blocks with boards on them. My meals? I ate a lot of pasta,rice and at that time chicken was cheap. In the winter I had the heat set at approximately 55 degrees( That is when I had oil) Yep, at times I had pipes freeze because it wasn't warm enough to keep pipes from freezing. I drove a beater car that each time I got in it I hoped it would start. Oh, Did I mention I was working full time at a corporate America retailer? Well, I guess maybe by your standards maybe I was making a "Living wage" because I was living! 
Let's roll forward to today, Minimum wage (federal) is now $7:15, Let's see.....That's 296 dollars a week..... And someone is to pay rent, insurance, food,transportation,energy,utilities and Oh wait..........If they have extra left over invest in their company 401K....
But since the person is in "Poverty income" They can get a nice healthy tax refund after they work that year for their wonderful employer! Hell, They would be better of staying home collecting welfare........Damn, I forgot...Welfare will force them to work. 
As far as your 1977 income of approximately $198.00 a week....I too could have been comfortable. And look at what you were bringing in then versus $296 dollars a week full time minimum wage today! I don't think there was any inflation other that your head! 
|
|
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Location: Region 1
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: | |||
One reason they don't post salary ranges for any given position is that if they did they would be locked into those salary ranges for an applicant when hired. Not posting salary ranges for a position gives them the advantage of offering you the lowest amount they can get away with depending on your experience, etc. I know that new hires often receive starting salaries which are well above those who are already in the store and have been in the same position for years. Unless the new applicant has significant experience in that position which outranks those already employed, I think that practice borders on obscene. And I'm not talking about Specialists. I'm talking about cashiers, greeters, and customer service associates. |
|||
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 90
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject: | |
| Old Yeller, Yes, if you work in a Union shop, you pay Union dues. Usually 2 to 2.5% (My dues were 1.75% when I was glassworker). But then again Union wages are usually 40+ percent higher than a comparable non-Union shop. Money well spent. As for "equal pay for equal work", don't you watch the news? That is one of the first things Obama acted on. The question now is, how will it be applied? If Unions did not exist, you would be working 16 hour days, seven day work weeks, no health insurance, no sick pay, no paid in this situation by their own greed and lack of foresight, not Unions. What perks do you enjoy? How many of them were fought for by Union men and women who gave it all for AMERICA? I would say ALL of them. You added figures show me nothing. Where is the documentaion for these figures? Unions protect working people from money hungry businessmen who care only about themselves and their self serving ideals. There are "checks and balances" in life. Especially in the workplace. When greedy companies prey on the workers without representation, only the rich get richer as the poor get poorer. Your common Republican conception of Unions does not suprise me. The change all really began when "Personnel Office" become "Human Resources". Personnel means personal, resources means a commodity to use, abuse and throw away. You too, Old Yeller, are disposable in the eyes of corporate America. Now you may return to the rock you crawled out from under. | |
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 2801
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: | |||
I'm not here to say that unions are the answer, But they are looking out for the worker not the investor! And here we are bailing out the banks and financial institutions because of the minions of wall street like Bernard Bernaker and other hedge fund managers that raped the people 
OK, I know you want to bring up the auto industry. The whole collapse of this economy is due to what I have mentioned above and This country's dependency on oil. The big 3 auto industries hands were tied. What to hell were they to do? Tell the government that they were going to refuel the cars with hydrogen? Until the government can figure a way to tax hydrogen powered fuel you will never see them, Imagine filling your car with tap water. Where would the government get all their money? |
|||
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Georgia
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:54 pm Post subject: | |||
Last edited by oldyeller on Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Georgia
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: | |||
|
|||
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 90
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: | |
| Your philosophies are clearly Republican in nature. That is why I said that. Anybody can throw up figures. That is why I ask for documentation. I did not say Obama is any messiah or such. But Bush has pretty well destroyed this country. You sure do like to put words in my mouth. THAT I DO NOT LIKE! Reparations, SURELY NOT! It was said before, you can not reason with an idiot. You fit the job description of an idiot. If you want to see stupidity, look in the mirror! That is not name calling. That is calling as it is. You know, I am sure a magic negro is alot better than the BUSHwackers or America, The Bush clan. Lets get back to the main topic of this post, WAGE COMPARISONS. | |
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 2801
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:41 am Post subject: | |||
So a person has to be married or living with someone? OK, So if 10 people work at minimum wage and live together the household income would be $148,720........What does that prove? 1 person needs to make a living wage. That will change from area to area. A living wage in New York City is going to be different from what is needed to live in say bum "F" Egypt. You know what I'm talking about when I say a living wage. |
|||
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: | |||||
You still haven't convinced me that unions are the "end-all be-all" solution for retail workers.
I never mentioned anything about the auto industry you're the one that brought it up. And, NO, you don't know what I want to bring up and you still haven't convinced me that unions are the "end-all be-all" solution for retail workers. With your advanced knowledge of unions and how they work in taking care of the workers show/tell me what you know and how it will help all retail workers. |
|||||
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 2801
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: | |
|
I wasn't talking to you air head.
My point is Retail and Corporate wants slave workers. PERIOD, "F" the union conversation my point is people working to make an income to live one, But since you and your croonies are too damn thick. I made my point, Your one line responses show your depth!
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:19 am Post subject: | |||||||
Well, actually you did respond with the following when I posted "Sorry, I'm just not convinced that unions are the "end-all be-all" solution for retail workers..."
Love the cute little name calling too, it will always prove you point...
So you can't come up with anything that will show how unions are the "end-all be-all" solution for retail workers, just childish antics and name calling... Yep, you made your point alright!!! |
|||||||
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Georgia
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: | |||||
|
|||||
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 82
Location: Georgia
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:35 am Post subject: | |||
|
|||
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 90
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: | |
| I did not say that, you did. Old Yeller, I am tired of your redundant bullshit. Why don't you pair up with O"Reilly, that master of spin. I will not even your silly remark with an answer. Keep on the thread topic, wage comparisons, if that is not to difficult for your simple lop-sided mind. End of conversation. | |
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 464
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: | |||||
|
What is, or was, a "living wage" in Chicago in 2006?
Chicago: Groundbreaking Retail Workers Living Wage Law Passes
A "living wage" of $10/Hr plus $3/Hr in benefits!!! |
|||||
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject: | |
|
Any job you work at there's going to be benifits that cost the company money. These should be considered when someone looks at the job.
Case in point I worked at a place before that didn't pay much but it had quite a bit onsite...dry cleaning, film development, a gym (like $1.50 a week it cost), onsite day care (they gutted it a year or so ago), onsite oil changes if the weather is decent, 40% discount on the products, a full cafeteria. My brother has worked at a place where until a few months ago all of his health care was covered (wasn't even union) so what I'm saying is you can't simply look at the pay to determine how good a job is. I thought I made a post earlier that dealt with things but maybe it was deleted. With unions there's things they can and cannot do. If a union can't go on strike then wheres the power? How many large strikes have there been in the past say 30 years. After Patco it went downhill. The UPS and Verizon strike I'd say were the largest but there were no problems after that. Although I'd say that just the idea of one can scare not only a company but their competitors. I don't think a place would have to go all union to make things change. Costco is less than 20% unionized...but it's enough to make their benifits and wage pacakges make walmart look like a kids lemonade stand! |
|
Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 18
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: | |
|
[quote="trueairspeed"]What is, or was, a "living wage" in Chicago in 2006?
[url=http://www.progressivestates.org/content/347/groundbreaking-living-wage-victory-for-chicago-retail-workers]Chicago: Groundbreaking Retail Workers Living Wage Law Passes[/url] [quote]By a vote of 35 to 14, the Chicago city council yesterday approved a new ordinance requiring large retailers in the city to phase in a living wage for their employees of $10 per hour plus $3 per hour in benefits-- the highest minimum wage established for any industry sector in the country. If signed by the mayor, the law would raise pay for tens of thousands of workers in retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, Lowe's and Home Depot. A broad coalition of organizations including ACORN, labor unions and church groups worked together for its passage.[/quote] [quote]And while large retailers covered by the ordinance are making noises about not building new stores in the city, the reality is that after Santa Fe created a living wage of $9.50 per hour for large employers, Wal-Mart asked for approval to build a new Supercenter. The fact that leading retailer Costco already pays all its employees a living wage of $10 per hour plus benefits nationwide emphasizes that "big box" retailers can thrive paying a living wage. See this economic analysis of why the expansion drive by large retailers means higher wage standards will not deter their growth.[/quote] A "living wage" of $10/Hr plus $3/Hr in benefits!!![/quote] A living wage for one person is about 15 bucks and hour. |
|
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 445
| Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: | |
| $15/hr might make sense in some areas but not others. It depends where you live. | |