Why is it communist/leftist to try and fight for better wages? Wanting more capital is leftist??

Originally posted by cloudyday

Unions encourage workers to believe that they are enemies of the owners. Communists do exactly the same thing. That is what I find scary about unions - tyranny of the masses.

edit on 15-1-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

Tyranny is bad whether it's by the masses, or by a minority. But if you think about it, how can the majority tyrannize anything but a minority. Will we tyrannize ourselves?

Workers are enemies of the owners because it is the owners exploitation of workers that is the problem in the first place. The workers see the owners as unnecessary. The workers would be better off if they owned their own workplace, instead they have to produce more than they are paid for so the 'private owner' can make profit.

The private owner is the minority, and they exploit, and tyrannize (absolute power), the majority. How do the masses tyrannize if they have no power over others, who would they tyrannize? The point of the left is to break down authority, and not allow one group of people to lord over another (through the state).

In true socialism, libertarian socialism, there would be no tyranny of the masses, as all voices would be heard. There is no overlord dictating how the majority has to live. Democracy would be direct, and all voices heard until a consensus is reached they all agree on.

Originally posted by Cassius666

I dont exactly get what point you are trying to make. That a salary should/is payd according to talent? It reads more like you are trying to avoid a confrontation.

I'm saying that talent is different than just skill. I could be a doctor if I wanted to, but I could not be an NBA player. So I suggest we put talent aside for it is a special situation that doesn't really match up with the norm. With that said, a job should be based on skill, experience and knowledge....and maybe other aspects, but in the end it is discriminators that determine how big the personal pool is to do a job well.

With my job I teach and fly UAVs and the discriminators for it are as follows. Teaching experience, expertise in UAVs, pilot license, BS degree, secret clearance, ability to travel anywhere in the world, understanding of the military, advance computer skills.. and many more. So what should this job pay? How many people can do this job with like skill sets as I have? What is my social worth? Why do I not worry about the poverty level?

You dont know the first thing about communism.

Maybe, but I do know people are only equal at birth and after that it is up to them. Communism works only in theory, and many times in the past we have seen that once you add the human factor it fails.

Originally posted by Cassius666
You dont know the first thing about communism. Unions encourage workers to put themselves in a position where they can negotiate on a level playing field. How is that tyranny of the masses? Sounds like a bashing of democracy. If a great deal of workers are unhappy with their salary and they organise themselves to vouche their demand and put down their work all at the same time, thats tyranny of the masses?

edit on 15-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

It is tyranny of the masses when the unions use violence and threats of violence. Why do you think the unions were pushing to know how each employee voted on union elections? There is no reason to eliminate private voting unless you want to intimidate people who disagree with you. The history of the US labor movement is very violent.

I don't mind if employees want to leave their jobs or bargain collectively, but unions typically intimidate people. Beyond that, unions typically ruin any industry that they get their greedy fingers on. Of course I don't eat at Burger King, but I don't want the unions to get their hands on Popeye's Fried Chicken. I don't want to pay $30 for my chicken strips; they already cost plenty.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

Don't you get tired of putting words in others mouths?

Spare me all the reasons why you can't succeed.

Oh? Well, SyphonX has is right. We are drones and you are right, we do it to ourselves. As for me, it's way too late. Having the kid sealed my fate. I'm not going anywhere and my life is pretty much working too long for too little. If it wasn't for the kid i'd have done myself in ages ago and I mean that.
So in closing people-If you want to get ahead don't have kids and major in a science or technology field.

If I may interject here...please don't think that way. There are so many reasons you are wrong. I have three kids and do side jobs (I do have a mate who works as well) but I go to school online in a tech field, it's not that difficult & super cheap ($23,000) because it is online and it's very flexible so you can work and care for the child plus there is even more financial aid for single mothers. So you should do it. Find what you love and find out where the most jobs in that field are, and do it!!! I mean it could not hurt. And I know people will say "Government handouts, blahde blahde blah" but guess what the only one who matters is you, the rest of the world be damned (and in my eyes this is still pulling yourself out of the tar) regardless. It's not too late I am near forty in 2 months, and I am graduating this June. I may not be a millionaire by the time I am done, But I will know that I am worth more than $7.25 an hour, and I will feel I have succeeded in something, even if I still have to wrok side jobs I will feel accomplished plus I could add tech work side jobs which people do pay quite a large penny for anyway. So I'll at least be slightly less uncomfortable.

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Its an interesting Avatar you have when you consider that this man ......

fired the air traffic controllers on strike in 1981. Believed to be a seminal event for the legal right of private employers.


.........

To your question.

I think that workers need all the leverage they can get in organising the best deal for selling their labour. Corporations have become so behemoth and well resourced...its hardly a level playing field. But trade unions can get a little power hungry and corrupt too given enough time.

When the ATC employees went on strike they broke federal law. When they were hired the contract they signed EXPRESSLY STATED they could not strike. No one forced them to become controllers, no gun put to their head. Under normal circumstances this would be a most outrageous, and in most cases an illegal employment clause but consider: Air traffic controllers are what are classified as critical government employees. It would be as if a group in the armed forces went out on strike. Local police can as far as I know can go out on strike, (not sure, anyone sure about this?) but not the military or air traffic controllers. Its considered and is a vital national occupation. Shut down air traffic and you can cripple the country. Thats not acceptable.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I still dont get what point you are trying to make. I dont question there is talen. How does it relate to what I said? From what I read you seem to argue that everyone should be payd according to his talents and skills. I can only guess because you dont say what your point is.

But to answer your question, you should he payd whatever you can negotiate. Thats what I think. Or do you feel there should be a fixed figure of income determined by talent and skill?

Originally posted by Cassius666

I still dont get what point you are trying to make. I dont question there is talen. How does it relate to what I said? From what I read you seem to argue that everyone should be payd according to his talents and skills. I can only guess because you dont say what your point is.

A job is worth what skills it takes to do it. If a job is unskilled then it should be low pay, and if a person wants more than they can negotiate, but their best course of action is to get skills and a better job. Holding a company hostage as in the form of a strike is not negotiating though. Minimum wage is a very touchy point and can have huge negative affects every time it is raised. Most jobs are above minimum wage, just because most people will not work for minimum wage. It is reserved to the unskilled very young and those who have done little to improve their selves.

Or do you feel there should be a fixed figure of income determined by talent and skill?

All jobs are somewhat fixed within a range of pay, but your power to negotiate is in what you bring to it i.e. skill. If you have no skills or ones a company does not value there is no negotiating. So I guess my main point is that if a person wants a better wage then they need to get the skills for a different job that pays better. As example a woman who is a phone receptionist most likely does not get paid very well, so what are her choices? Remember I said all jobs fall within a range, well the upper and lower range of a receptionist both suck in pay. She can either motivate all the other receptionists to strike or, just maybe, get a better skill and a better job. Let's say they strike and get a raise, well their pay still sucks.... If she goes to night school and learns to become a dental tech then she can move to a higher range of pay that even at the lower end is 2x what she was making at the higher end before.

Getting ahead in life is much more internal than external. Many though feel it is all external and either the Government or a company needs to take care of them.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Cassius666

I still dont get what point you are trying to make. I dont question there is talen. How does it relate to what I said? From what I read you seem to argue that everyone should be payd according to his talents and skills. I can only guess because you dont say what your point is.

A job is worth what skills it takes to do it. If a job is unskilled then it should be low pay, and if a person wants more than they can negotiate, but their best course of action is to get skills and a better job. Holding a company hostage as in the form of a strike is not negotiating though.

You advocate using money as a tool for social engineering. A job is not worth what skill it takes to do it. A job is worth what both sites can negotiate, if only one side does the negotiating, then the price is going to be skewed closely to what the side doing the negotiating wants.

Or do you feel there should be a fixed figure of income determined by talent and skill?

All jobs are somewhat fixed within a range of pay, but your power to negotiate is in what you bring to it i.e. skill. If you have no skills or ones a company does not value there is no negotiating. So I guess my main point is that if a person wants a better wage then they need to get the skills for a different job that pays better. As example a woman who is a phone receptionist most likely does not get paid very well, so what are her choices? Remember I said all jobs fall within a range, well the upper and lower range of a receptionist both suck in pay. She can either motivate all the other receptionists to strike or, just maybe, get a better skill and a better job. Let's say they strike and get a raise, well their pay still sucks.... If she goes to night school and learns to become a dental tech then she can move to a higher range of pay that even at the lower end is 2x what she was making at the higher end before.

Getting ahead in life is much more internal than external. Many though feel it is all external and either the Government or a company needs to take care of them.

Again advocte using money for social engineering without realizing it. The price range is set by those who did the negotiating before you not becaue there is some table that says skillset X should earn you this and that. A company pays you a good salary because they are hoping to do money with you. A single person, an actor, has an easy time organizing himself. If LeBron aks Miami, "did you like doing Millions with me last year, do you want to do millions with me in the future, then I want X" and negotiations start from there.

A single worker has a hard time negotiating with one company when he is one of many. But when they negotiate as a group and tell Burger King, look you made X profits with us on a regular basis. We want X ammount from the projected profits spent after a raise or you will have to go through the trouble to replace us all, then they are in a better position to negotiate. I dont see the communism or socialism here. They stand a chance that their demands are met, because the company might be willing to make less, yet good profits. You say they should not negotiate for a better pay, because you feel that their skillset isnt worth as much. That is using money, a salary scale determined by skill if you will, for social engineering.

reply to post by Cassius666


Funny how no one ever talks about a maximum wage....

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Its an interesting Avatar you have when you consider that this man ......

fired the air traffic controllers on strike in 1981. Believed to be a seminal event for the legal right of private employers.


.........

To your question.

I think that workers need all the leverage they can get in organising the best deal for selling their labour. Corporations have become so behemoth and well resourced...its hardly a level playing field. But trade unions can get a little power hungry and corrupt too given enough time.

^^Quote for truth about Reagan. I LOVED how he was all solidarity this and that for Poland... in America he axed folks like they talkd $h!t on his terrible movies and his ugly wife.

If left to their own designs Corporations are about profit, they would remove the minimum wage and play you in bags of socks or bags of dirt like they do in that on South African gold mine.

Derek

reply to post by Viesczy


I whish minimum wage would be done away with, so workers would reach a level of discontent where they would organise themselves to find ways to effectively negotiate with their employers. I am sure in those south African states they have ideas how they would go about it, but sadly they lack basic rights that protect them from violent repercussions.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by antonia

 

Don't you get tired of putting words in others mouths?

Spare me all the reasons why you can't succeed.

Oh? Well, SyphonX has is right. We are drones and you are right, we do it to ourselves. As for me, it's way too late. Having the kid sealed my fate. I'm not going anywhere and my life is pretty much working too long for too little. If it wasn't for the kid i'd have done myself in ages ago and I mean that.
So in closing people-If you want to get ahead don't have kids and major in a science or technology field.

Yeep. Knowing things and solving real technical problems and really doing something is not the way to get the big bucks. To earn big bucks you need to manipulate people into beliving you are needed to fix a problem that you never will fix because then you won't get payed the big bucks anymore. And of course go to the important meetings where you can disscous the work that is being done in more length than it takes to do the actual work. I love the people that tell me they work so many hours a day but only get half to an hour of real work done. I suck at lying and have a moral backbone and even care about the people that I help. If it weren't for the workers/people that would have a sucky day if I did not do what I was supposed to (and more) I would have done less than half the work I do and would have gotten away with it. The higher salary for performance/struggle is a thing big managment say to make us perform. The funny thing is that they are sometimes using very socialist/communist way of thinking to motivate the working class. We are all in this together. We are a team. We have to work together. While they manipulate us they might in fact sell the dream and in fact create exactly what they don't want. Workers that belive 100% in equality and won't take the crap from the system. It is the illusion that you can sell to the employers that you are getting payed for, not the actual work.

What I don't really get is how the right continues to propegate this BS that only the left wants redistribution, when it is not only the left. The right wants redistribution too, The only problem is, they want it siphoned and redistributed to the top of the pyramid, and, lo and behold, they have been exceedingly successful in doing it within the past few years, the only reason that they hate the left is, the left wants it redistributed to the masses (you know those that the people at the top of the pyramid rode on the backs of for profit) by way of fair wages. So the left is evil for wanting some of the pie basically, because the right thinks they are the only ones "entitled" to any of it, just because they think they're so smart...well I tell them wait until a survival shtf scenario and see just how "Smart" you think you are when you don't even know how to till a field or build a cabin, or even how to do laundry without setting a machine to do it.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
What I don't really get is how the right continues to propegate this BS that only the left wants redistribution, when it is not only the left. The right wants redistribution too, The only problem is, they want it siphoned and redistributed to the top of the pyramid, and, lo and behold, they have been exceedingly successful in doing it within the past few years, the only reason that they hate the left is, the left wants it redistributed to the masses (you know those that the people at the top of the pyramid rode on the backs of for profit) by way of fair wages. So the left is evil for wanting some of the pie basically, because the right thinks they are the only ones "entitled" to any of it, just because they think they're so smart...well I tell them wait until a survival shtf scenario and see just how "Smart" you think you are when you don't even know how to till a field or build a cabin, or even how to do laundry without setting a machine to do it.

I hope that there will be a need for technicians also because otherwise I will be doomed . Let the change come already. Namaste

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by ldyserenity
What I don't really get is how the right continues to propegate this BS that only the left wants redistribution, when it is not only the left. The right wants redistribution too, The only problem is, they want it siphoned and redistributed to the top of the pyramid, and, lo and behold, they have been exceedingly successful in doing it within the past few years, the only reason that they hate the left is, the left wants it redistributed to the masses (you know those that the people at the top of the pyramid rode on the backs of for profit) by way of fair wages. So the left is evil for wanting some of the pie basically, because the right thinks they are the only ones "entitled" to any of it, just because they think they're so smart...well I tell them wait until a survival shtf scenario and see just how "Smart" you think you are when you don't even know how to till a field or build a cabin, or even how to do laundry without setting a machine to do it.

I hope that there will be a need for technicians also because otherwise I will be doomed

. Let the change come already. Namaste

I'm sure they will, I am specifically referring to those desk jockeys that "think they do so much" adding a bunch of digital numbers together and manipulating markets...yea that must be real laborious.

The American Democrat Socialist Party way:
What you have belongs to the world!
But,what the Socialist have,belongs to them!

They have this big ass double standard!

The more Wages you get the more you can afford , the more prices rise. There is no point in raising wages. Things will just rise in price.

Originally posted by milkyway12
The more Wages you get the more you can afford , the more prices rise. There is no point in raising wages. Things will just rise in price.

Why is there a point in turning a profit and increasing a profit then?