New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. ....

And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

That surprises me.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

It is much easier to choose government regulations to get a raise than it is for unions but by choosing government, you are hurting unions by giving the unions less power since you are less dependent on them. Then you end up becoming too dependent on government regulations and you become a statistic and at the mercy of people that truly do not represent you.

If you choose unions, you are only helping the people that work at your company or are members of your union while people that can not get into unions are screwed. It is also much harder and take longer to get a raise in a union so the amount of work is against you in a union.

I would much rather choose unions because I believe in giving people power instead of the government but unions are very weak in the United States and sometimes you have to go to government to get change even if it will hurt the unions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Funny I was just talking about this recently.

Yes, the two ways to get an increase in wage, working conditions, etc are either by unions or government regulations and unfortunately, by choosing one, you will hurt your power of the other.

That's not true, actually they go hand in hand.
The government raising minimum wage, only helps those at the very bottom and are covered by the minimum wage law. The union works for better wages for those above minimum wage as well. The government passes work safety rules that they don't have the manpower to enforce. Unions help force the company to abide by the laws and go further to institute safe/ergonomic practices, that the laws can't foresee. The government passes anti-discrimination laws but the unions see that all the people doing the same job, are paid equally. Etc, etc, etc...

Yes, I know that some unions have abused their power, and discriminated against minorities. But there are laws governing unions too. Anyone mistreated can sue and/or go to the government and file a complaint, against the union as well as the company. The union and the government are the same, in that the people make it as good or bad as they want it to be.