AOC’s inspiration failed as solar company fires all employees after they unionized

originally posted by: Ohanka
Being a power company it should be government owned as public utility from the start with so there aren’t parasites at the top to make such decisions.

Almost all utilities in the United States are private, I don't want the government handling my electricity and gas, they can't even deliver my effing mail properly.

Almost all utility companies 20 years ago were public. And the service was exactly the same, but the cost was far less. Now I understand from your statement that you prefer to pay a higher price for equal service, so you probably really enjoy our healthcare system too. As to usps, I never have any problems with their service. I find them, ups, and fedex to be generally interchangeable depending upon which is closest to me at the time I need them. Lastly, there are no studies or evidence that public businesses are better or worse at providing a service than private ones. But they are objectively less expensive. So you’re opinion is both irrational, emotionally based, and incorrect.

originally posted by: pexx421
Almost all utility companies 20 years ago were public.

No they weren't, they've almost all been private from the outset, starting with Consolidated Edison.

As to usps, I never have any problems with their service. I find them, ups, and fedex to be generally interchangeable.

UPS and FedEx don't deliver mail, they deliver packages. I said mail.

a reply to: pexx421

Sure, but this doesn’t explain the divergence between productivity and wages that happened in the 70’s and has increased since then.

That is simply the economies of scale coming into play. As the global marketplace increased, so did the scale, and the companies made more profit. The workers did not because they didn't demand it. That's where Unionization works out well, if the workers at a company choose to collectively demand better wages. The caveat, of course, is the caveat that caught the workers in this issue: the demands must be reasonable. The workers do not get all of the pie. If they demand all of the pie, the pie disappears.

Pharma has been allowed to manipulate legislation that has enabled them runaway profits with no corresponding increase in the value of their products.

Different issue. Industries should not be manipulating legislation, but to accomplish that we have to get away from identity politics and look at politicians in terms of their policies and effectiveness, not in terms of political party affiliation or personal attributes.

In other words, good freakin' luck.

This, along with health insurance and predatory healthcare profiteering, have greatly inflated the labor costs of the American worker.

Again, different issue (in this case a direct result of governmental interference combined with insurance permeating the industry).

And there’s another factor as well. Another poster stated that we all work together, and if a company does well the owner profits, the shareholders profit, the execs profit, and the workers profit. But that’s not true. If the company profits now, for the vast majority of Americans, what happens is the execs profit. The owner or shareholders profit. The managers profit. But the workers make the same they would working for any other x,y, z company that does the same kind of work.

Of course! It's called the Law of Supply and Demand!

But what you are missing is that working for a company is not a marriage. It is an ongoing commitment by both parties involved. You are offering your services in exchange for money, period. We have somehow decided that this isn't enough, and all workers must have benefits. Those benefits are part of your compensation! If you should be making $40 an hour, but the benefits cost $20 an hour, you will only see $20 an hour in cash. If the minimum wage is $7 an hour, and you are worth $20 an hour, but the benefits cost a company $15 an hour, you cannot work for less than $22 an hour actual cost, and that's $2 an hour you are costing your employer just by making minimum wage!

In that case, the company isn't going to hire workers, or they will have to raise their profit margin and their goods will cost more. If their goods cost more, they won't sell as many and won't need as many workers. That's the spiral that has been occurring, and the companies are caught in the middle... they have to pay their bills, too, including stockholders, so there's not much money left to work with, and then the workers complain because there's not much money left to hire them.

Not to mention that just having a job is profit! No one is guaranteed a job. Having one is a lot more profitable than not having one. All one needs to do a job is clean, appropriate clothing and themselves... everything else is profit. The company has to pay for office space, equipment, overhead, management, and still somehow make a product that will sell at a price people will pay... their income is certainly not all profit.

Someone above mentioned that the workers should just start doing contracting and get paid that way. That is exactly how I started my company. The place I was working at was not treating me fairly, so I quit, got a business license, and started contracting (I eventually was contracting for the company I left). Did I make more as a contractor? Yeah, something like 3 times as much! But I did without health insurance; I had no retirement; and I spent more than what I was making in office space, equipment, materials, overhead, and fees and regulations. In the end? I would have probably been better off if I was still an employee, at least at first.

It just doesn't work the way you think it does, and it will never work the way you think it should. Try to force it to work like you think it should, and it'll just stop working... like the employees at the solar power company found out.

TheRedneck

I largely agree with most of what you said. Except for the supply and demand bit. Businesses use everything at their disposal to manipulate supply and demand when it comes to labor. Similar to holding back product to raise costs. At any rate, specific to the solar company I have no feelings either way. Does seem they asked too much. But the fact is that 84% of workers don’t have a union, and have no ability to bargain or represent on their own behalf. So In my view, those two factors, manipulated labor supply (through immigrant labor, outsourcing, etc) and destruction of workers unions and representation, we have a system whereby business has pre emoted worker wages and power for some time.

a reply to: pexx421

Workers certainly do have the ability to bargain. They are selling a product, raw labor, and they get to set the price for what it is worth. There is nothing special about a worker demanding too much for their labor and not being able to find a job at that price and a company selling plain candles for $50 and no one buying them because the same candles sell for $1 elsewhere.

I have bargained at every single job I have worked, and all of them were non-union (OK, the job at the nuclear plant was government union, which is about the same thing). Every single time I had the right and the ability to say, "I won't work for that; I need this." Every single time. If someone offers me a wage too low and I think I can do better elsewhere, I go elsewhere, just like if I want a product and a store is asking too much and I think I can do better elsewhere, I go elsewhere. Labor is just another commodity, some would say the most basic commodity... every able-bodied person has labor they can sell, improve, or waste as they see fit.

In the end, you are arguing for the very thing you complain about in others. Everyone is trying to find the best bargain... everyone! Not just investors, not just management, everyone. People buy the cheapest product that they are satisfied with... and businesses will buy the cheapest labor they can make use of. There is no difference. Investors will invest in the best investment they can find. Again, no difference.

The difference is that people don't want the above statement to be true. They want to pretend their labor is valuable and everyone else's is not... that's a lie. A worker is worth whatever the market will bear, just as a car is worth whatever someone will pay for it.

Just like any other commodity, labor is regulated by supply and demand. If there are 20 widget polishers in an area and there are only 15 jobs available, supply outstrips demand and the price (wage) drops. If there are 25 jobs for widget polishers, the wages go up... demand outstrips supply. You want higher wages? Speed up the economy and create more jobs. You want lower wages? Slow the economy and decrease the number of jobs available.

Incidentally, that is why CEOs make so much more money than a line worker... there are plenty of people around that are quite capable of putting tab 'A' into slot 'B' as products roll by on an assembly line; there are precious few people who can handle running a large company through economic upturns and downturns and keep it profitable.

TheRedneck

Except your analogy is missing something. That businesses have a certain amount of control over the supply and demand market. They largely control how loose or strict our immigrant worker policy is, or our regulations on outsourcing, etc. They are bypassing the supply and demand of the us labor market and making us compete with third world nations. As to YOUR ability to bargain. Well, hey that’s cool! But I hope you realize that the majority of Americans don’t have that. The service sector, which is where the vast majority of Americans are now employed, don’t get to tell Burger King or zales, or Oschner “no, my work is worth x”. Or, they can do that, but every other similar job is paying y, so they’ll just be turning down this job to get a similar offer from that.

If agreeing or declining a certain salary is the extent of bargaining and worker representation to you, then you clearly don’t understand the issues. Otherwise we never would have needed the unions, and could have just continued the indentured servitude of working for the steel and oil robber barons. Guess people fought and were imprisoned, abused, and killed in all the labor wars and mass strikes for nothing then.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: neo96

as a small business owner, you have to operate a efficiently as possible. If you can sub out your labor, and save money, it's what you do. You don't go into business to make everyone else rich, you try to make yourself money and in turn, those who helped you will reap the profits as well. But you have to put in some time and effort. asking for the moon on day 1 likely will result in this.

I disagree. Many times what you start at is what you make for your life at a company. Maybe things were different for boomers but millenials are in their 30's now and we do not see a ladder.

$56 an hour plus benefits was maybe too much to ask for, depending on how successful the company was, but I don't know how much money that company was making so I can't make that judgment.

What I do know - any company that does not have a employee profit sharing plan is the spawn of satan. Every business should share a percentage of it's profits with it's employees. It would fix stagnant wages and solve so many problems for people who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families.

I've even wondered in the past if this could be legislated. Mandate that at minimum a business must share at least 20% of it's profits with employees. Since we are talking profits and not sales, it can not drive the business into the ground, it motivates employees to work harder, and it encourages businesses to employee skilled first-world employees over third-worlders because a mandate like this prevents outsourcing from being a solution to reduce employment costs. They'll have to share that 20% regardless.

a reply to: mamabeth

I lost mine for yelling at a girl and I was yelling for the boss.

Great management skills there. Possibly the real reason you were fired. And a brown noser in the bargain.

originally posted by: neo96
Their in for a rude awakening. If they do

Especially having to pay self employment taxes and ALL of their social secuirty and medicare TAXES. Ontop other taxes.

Ummm... paying both sides of FICA and all of Medicare is the definition of 'self-employment' taxes.

Yes, it sucks, and is one of the many ways that Corporations actually have more Rights than people do. Corporations can write off all of their expenses - independent contractors? Nope, not even close.

a reply to: pexx421

Except your analogy is missing something. That businesses have a certain amount of control over the supply and demand market. They largely control how loose or strict our immigrant worker policy is, or our regulations on outsourcing, etc.

Businesses don't (or at least shouldn't) have any say in immigration, outside of being allowed to get worker VISAs issued for specific individuals as specified by law. Congress has that responsibility. You're therefore discussing corruption in government which is another issue completely.

There are no regulations on outsourcing. Outsourcing, from an economic perspective, is simply choosing another provider for a needed commodity. Do you want that? It would be the same thing as telling you which store you have to buy groceries from.

As to YOUR ability to bargain. Well, hey that’s cool! But I hope you realize that the majority of Americans don’t have that.

Oh, yes they do! Name me one single American, just one, who was forced to accept a job they didn't want. Just one. I am not talking about having to accept one because they wanted/needed the money... I mean forced as in they were required by law or were kidnapped and forced to work for a certain wage at the point of a gun.

Or, they can do that, but every other similar job is paying y, so they’ll just be turning down this job to get a similar offer from that.

Then their labor is worth 'y.' A commodity is worth what the market will pay for it. There is no working, functional economic system where the seller determines the value of their product. In every economic exchange, the buyer determines if the product is worth the cost. How else could an economy function? Imagine for a moment if a seller could determine that a can of beans was worth $50, and consumers had no choice to say no, we don't think it's worth that. That's a silly analogy, but it is also an accurate analogy.

Workers own their labor; they sell it for what the market will pay. If they want it to be worth more, there are ways to increase the value of their labor... learn a skill, get a degree, show loyalty to a company... but to simply demand that they should be able to set the price for their labor is as silly an argument as saying a company can force people to buy a can of beans for whatever price it chooses.

If agreeing or declining a certain salary is the extent of bargaining and worker representation to you, then you clearly don’t understand the issues.

You're right; I don't understand the issue. What I see is a market where a producer of a service is setting their own price and complaining, no, demanding legislation when their service does not sell for that price. Why stop at $56 an hour? Why not $56,000 an hour? $5,600,000 an hour?

When unions were instituted, the labor market was drastically different than it is today. Are you familiar with the "company store"? Instead of paying in dollars, some companies would pay in private script, which was only good at a retail outlet that was owned and run by the company. Workers were forced to buy products from the same company that 'paid' them, so the company was able to set exorbitant prices through their monopoly. That's illegal today. It is also illegal for a company to hire a bunch of goons to assault workers protesting their working conditions... it was illegal back then too, but it wasn't enforced. Today it's enforced. Today we have OSHA regulations to keep workers safe from working conditions.

Today, almost every full-time job comes with health care insurance, some sort of retirement plan, time off, and a work week is generally fixed at 40 hours per week. Anything over that is generally required to be paid at time and a half pay rate. We have come a long, long way from the days when the work week was whatever the company said it was, pay was whatever the company decided to pay, striking was met with physical violence, and worker safety was a joke. Much of that is thanks to the Unions, but those same Unions are today pushing too far and driving companies into bankruptcy... and that hurts everyone. The investors lose their investment, management loses their jobs and reputations, workers lose their jobs, and a lack of products can cause inflation... all because someone thinks they get to set the price for their product.

So, yes, please explain the 'real' issues to me... because I damn sure don't understand them!

TheRedneck

a reply to: peskyhumans

What I do know - any company that does not have a employee profit sharing plan is the spawn of satan. Every business should share a percentage of it's profits with it's employees. It would fix stagnant wages and solve so many problems for people who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families.

I'm a big proponent of profit sharing. It's a great idea for some companies, but it doesn't work for others.

Consider a very small company: let's say they have two employees. That would mean that each employee would get 10% of the company profits. Now what would happen if the company decided to expand? Say they want to hire two more employees... that means each employee will then get 5% of the company profits. Now, if you were one of the original two employees, wouldn't that sound like a bad deal to you? Sure, maybe the company will make twice the profits, but maybe it won't... would you be willing to take that chance? Would you be tempted to actually sabotage the planned expansion to keep your 10%?

Consider a company with a high turnover rate (I drove for trucking companies that had turnover rates in excess of 300%... on average, they would have a new crew of drivers three times every year). Who gets the profit sharing? The workers there on the 1st of January? What would prevent the owners from picking their 'favorite' employees every December and just laying off the rest. They could always hire them back in February.

There's two instances where profit sharing doesn't work. For a low-turnover, large company it works great and I agree it is one of the best incentives to productivity a company can have, but I do not support any requirement for a company to engage in profit-sharing. There's too many instances where it doesn't work.

TheRedneck

a reply to: tanstaafl

Corporations can write off all of their expenses - independent contractors? Nope, not even close.

Independent contractors can be corporations... why would anyone start contracting without incorporating? That's like begging for someone to take everything they ever thought about owning. I wouldn't dream of starting a business without incorporating!

Right now I am working as a sole proprietorship, but I have no customers... I am working to develop products of my own design. I have no intention of ever selling products... I would prefer to sell the design, take my pennies, and move on. I can protect myself through contract that way, but if I were to have regular customers or produce actual products? Legal fees for incorporation would be my first expense!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Independent contractors can be corporations... why would anyone start contracting without incorporating? That's like begging for someone to take everything they ever thought about owning. I wouldn't dream of starting a business without incorporating!

Of course, but you still are on the hook for all of your FICA/Medicare, and when it comes to file your personal taxes, cannot write things off that corps can.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So if the independent contractor is a corporation, it cannot write off things that a corporation can?

A corporation is a legal business model. An independent contractor is a business. Any business can use any business model.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

So if the independent contractor is a corporation, it cannot write off things that a corporation can?

Not at the point the income devolves onto the flesh and blood person, correct.

People have less Rights than artificial persons.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: vonclod
They got greedy, figured being unionised meant "cash cow"

I'm on the fence with some unions..they definitely had their place, and served a needed purpose. Now..meh.

Unions worked and were a smart move when things like free trade, overreaching labor and environmental regulations, and "living wage" minimum wages didn't exist in the United States. With those policies firmly entrenched, however, all unions do is add yet another reason for companies to go outside the US borders to produce their good and/or service in one of the many, many countries out there which do not over-regulate their companies and do not mandate minimum wages.

Communist China has only one union and it is owned by the state. Workers are not allowed to form their own unions. I think the reason is clear. The state and banks are one and paying the workers as little as possible is beneficial to the state and bankers.

Workers under Communism are always paid crap wages, while workers under Capitalism have freedom to organize and make their own unions.

We should never trade with countries where workers do not have any freedoms or rights.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pexx421

Sure, but this doesn’t explain the divergence between productivity and wages that happened in the 70’s and has increased since then.

That is simply the economies of scale coming into play. As the global marketplace increased, so did the scale, and the companies made more profit. The workers did not because they didn't demand it. That's where Unionization works out well, if the workers at a company choose to collectively demand better wages. The caveat, of course, is the caveat that caught the workers in this issue: the demands must be reasonable. The workers do not get all of the pie. If they demand all of the pie, the pie disappears.

Pharma has been allowed to manipulate legislation that has enabled them runaway profits with no corresponding increase in the value of their products.

Different issue. Industries should not be manipulating legislation, but to accomplish that we have to get away from identity politics and look at politicians in terms of their policies and effectiveness, not in terms of political party affiliation or personal attributes.

In other words, good freakin' luck.

This, along with health insurance and predatory healthcare profiteering, have greatly inflated the labor costs of the American worker.

Again, different issue (in this case a direct result of governmental interference combined with insurance permeating the industry).

And there’s another factor as well. Another poster stated that we all work together, and if a company does well the owner profits, the shareholders profit, the execs profit, and the workers profit. But that’s not true. If the company profits now, for the vast majority of Americans, what happens is the execs profit. The owner or shareholders profit. The managers profit. But the workers make the same they would working for any other x,y, z company that does the same kind of work.

Of course! It's called the Law of Supply and Demand!

But what you are missing is that working for a company is not a marriage. It is an ongoing commitment by both parties involved. You are offering your services in exchange for money, period. We have somehow decided that this isn't enough, and all workers must have benefits. Those benefits are part of your compensation! If you should be making $40 an hour, but the benefits cost $20 an hour, you will only see $20 an hour in cash. If the minimum wage is $7 an hour, and you are worth $20 an hour, but the benefits cost a company $15 an hour, you cannot work for less than $22 an hour actual cost, and that's $2 an hour you are costing your employer just by making minimum wage!

In that case, the company isn't going to hire workers, or they will have to raise their profit margin and their goods will cost more. If their goods cost more, they won't sell as many and won't need as many workers. That's the spiral that has been occurring, and the companies are caught in the middle... they have to pay their bills, too, including stockholders, so there's not much money left to work with, and then the workers complain because there's not much money left to hire them.

Not to mention that just having a job is profit! No one is guaranteed a job. Having one is a lot more profitable than not having one. All one needs to do a job is clean, appropriate clothing and themselves... everything else is profit. The company has to pay for office space, equipment, overhead, management, and still somehow make a product that will sell at a price people will pay... their income is certainly not all profit.

Someone above mentioned that the workers should just start doing contracting and get paid that way. That is exactly how I started my company. The place I was working at was not treating me fairly, so I quit, got a business license, and started contracting (I eventually was contracting for the company I left). Did I make more as a contractor? Yeah, something like 3 times as much! But I did without health insurance; I had no retirement; and I spent more than what I was making in office space, equipment, materials, overhead, and fees and regulations. In the end? I would have probably been better off if I was still an employee, at least at first.

It just doesn't work the way you think it does, and it will never work the way you think it should. Try to force it to work like you think it should, and it'll just stop working... like the employees at the solar power company found out.

TheRedneck

The problem is the demands are never reasonable when companies can just move to Communist Countries where workers have always been paid peanuts.

In the 1960s, during the cold war, when unions used to make up a large percent of the American workforce, we were showered with propaganda on the differences between Capitalism and Communism.

The workers under Communism in the Soviet Union were paid peanuts while workers under Capitalism were paid high wages for working in the factories.

The Chamber of Commerce along with Big Business made a major push in the 70s to flood Washington DC with lobbyists. It was shortly after that, they pushed for trade with Japan, then Communist China.

A lot of the economic problems in this country can be laid at the feet of Big Business and them purchasing politicians.

The purpose of a business is to make as much money for the owners.
The purpose of the government on the other hand is to look out for the best interests of this nation via military and economic policy.

There is a conflict of interest when Big Business has to large a presence in our government.
Big Business do not care about the people and its country so they start selling the country out for more money and this is what is happening.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: neo96
Their in for a rude awakening. If they do

Especially having to pay self employment taxes and ALL of their social secuirty and medicare TAXES. Ontop other taxes.

Ummm... paying both sides of FICA and all of Medicare is the definition of 'self-employment' taxes.

Yes, it sucks, and is one of the many ways that Corporations actually have more Rights than people do. Corporations can write off all of their expenses - independent contractors? Nope, not even close.

This is a good point.
Business Owners may complain the amount of taxes they pay, but they include those costs in the products and services they sell. They are not taking those costs out of their own bank accounts so everyone is paying for it.

Now with wage earners, they have no way of pushing those costs to other people.
It is another way that they have the upperhand again.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Not at the point the income devolves onto the flesh and blood person, correct.

That point exists no matter what the size of the corporation. So, again, where is the difference?

If anything, you just reinforced my point that workers owe a lot to the companies hiring them, for hiring them.

TheRedneck