OT: On the killing floor; immigrations impacts on wages

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
Employees are not entitled to anything. They don’t like the pay, they can quit and look for another job.[/quote]

Are you entitled to a commission when you sell a house?

[livinincali]

[quote=SD Realtor]
It is all about net profit. McDonalds is an example that looses the wage scale battle. As NSR pointed out in his argument about the place in Colorado, paying those employees more makes sense because it saves the company money in the long run due to retention and employee training costs. Thus the company becomes more profitable by doing so. This is a valid argument and makes alot of sense.
[/quote]

In this particular example of the meat packing facility it looks like there’s an actual shortage of labor. If you do indeed have an actual shortage of labor the first response might be to market or expand recruiting operations, but if that doesn’t work the next step would be to raise the wages. At some point these facilities will have to come up with a solution whether it’s automation, raising salaries, or increasing the total compensation package for the employees.

McDonald’s doesn’t seem to have a labor shortage. In a certain locations like Aspen, CO maybe they do and are forced to pay employees more and charge higher prices, I don;t know but it wouldn’t surprise me. Of course in most cities there’s plenty of low skilled labor available just looking for a part time job to get some discretionary income. They aren’t trying to raise a family on a single minimum wage job.

[SD Realtor]

No I am not entitled to anything. Commissions are negotiable in the state of California. People employ me at the rate I promise to them. They are free to choose whoever they want to work with.

Funny how that works isn’t it? Just like someone is free to work for McDonalds or not.

Sorry about your snarky comment not working out.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]No I am not entitled to anything. Commissions are negotiable in the state of California. People employ me at the rate I promise to them. They are free to choose whoever they want to work with.

Funny how that works isn’t it? Just like someone is free to work for McDonalds or not.

Sorry about your snarky comment not working out.[/quote]

It worked out fine. You say you’re not entitled, but then want to get paid based on an agreed upon commission. I think you’re entitled to that. Exactly the same as McDonald’s employees are entitled to get the pay they’re promised.

[SD Realtor]

Nobody is entitled to anything. Payment for services is set by the marketplace. At least for the most part in free markets. Consumers shop the marketplace for the goods and services. They make the purchase based on the quality/price of the product, it is a sliding scale. Similarly employees are free to shop the marketplace to find employment. The salary they receive is set by the employer. The salary is not arbitrary. It is determined by the skills needed for the job, the cost of that labor to the employer, and other factors that the employer takes into account.

The salary has NOTHING to do with the employee being able to provide for his family. The employee is not ENTITLED to receive a salary that can support his family. He is ENTITLED to search for a job that can do that.

It should not be an encumbrance upon the employer.

*******************************************************

In fact, the standard listing agreement for the state of California states that the brokerage is under the employ of the principle. The rate of payment is negotiable. It has nothing to do with whether that will be enough to support my family.

My gosh….

[bearishgurl]

Very interesting older article of the history of the plant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/monfort-inc

Monfort WAS unionized up until about 1994, when they paid out $10.6M in back wages for hiring scabs during and after a long strike by their workers and then shutting down for two years in effort to break the union’s hold.

During the unionized employees’ tenure, the plant developed several innovative meat processing procedures. From 1987 thru 1994, Monfort was mired in ULPs and the resulting lawsuits as well as a lawsuit they filed themselves alleging monopolies. They were also victims of a large recall for an e-coli outbreak in their hamburger (they themselves invented the testing procedure), big fines for DOT violations, a shortage of grain due to the PTB sending too much abroad, changing consumer tastes and unfair monopolies by other regional meat packers. The subsequent consolidations and buyouts apparently ended up crushing the union’s hold on the workers, which were constantly being replaced. But not before Ken Monfort (son of founder Warren Monfort) passed and left his two sons a fortune. They now own the Colorado Rockies baseball team and other businesses and are also well-known philanthropists.

http://extras.denverpost.com/business/biz0203b.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monfort_brothers

So Monfort apparently DID have well-paying local jobs with benefits for nearly 40 years (1955-1994).

And the phenomenon we are now experiencing with no loyalty and high turnover amongst employees is just what today’s Big Business and Government want. They’re not looking for high levels of skill or “institutional knowledge” anymore. Most of today’s employers just want “warm bodies” doing “face time.” And that is what they have :=0

You get what you pay for.

[The-Shoveler]

They have wage riots in China all the time, we just don’t hear about them.

Coming soon to a city near you!

The only thing that has stopped it so far is welfare

Anyway just my opinion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Nobody is entitled to anything. Payment for services is set by the marketplace. At least for the most part in free markets. Consumers shop the marketplace for the goods and services. They make the purchase based on the quality/price of the product, it is a sliding scale. Similarly employees are free to shop the marketplace to find employment. The salary they receive is set by the employer. The salary is not arbitrary. It is determined by the skills needed for the job, the cost of that labor to the employer, and other factors that the employer takes into account.

The salary has NOTHING to do with the employee being able to provide for his family. The employee is not ENTITLED to receive a salary that can support his family. He is ENTITLED to search for a job that can do that.

It should not be an encumbrance upon the employer.

*******************************************************

In fact, the standard listing agreement for the state of California states that the brokerage is under the employ of the principle. The rate of payment is negotiable. It has nothing to do with whether that will be enough to support my family.

My gosh….[/quote]

Nice straw man argument. I never made any argument that pay should be enough to support a family. Only that employees are entitled to their agreed upon pay. Exactly the same as you are entitled to your agreed upon pay. And under the law, both are entitlements.

[The-Shoveler]

If it were not for food-stamps and medi-Cal the walmart and mcd’s workers would have been throwing stones a long time ago.

[SD Realtor]

Throwing stones? At what? Why?

Tell me, when did Walmart and McDonalds hold a gun to peoples heads to work there?

What about the 7 Elevens? What about every employer who pays a salary in that range?

*************

So you are saying people should get paid on what their bills are and not what the employer offers as a salary?

That is quite a concept.
*********************************************************

SK the thread has nothing to do with fulfilling a contract (ie – the employer paying the wage that he/she is obligated under an employment contract) It has to do with an employer paying low wages and the poster pointed out that paying higher wages may help this particular employer due to longer retention.

Yes I, and anyone else who enters into a contract is entitled to receive compensation under the terms of the contract. However the terms of the contract are not set by the needs of the employee. Sorry you were confused by the point of the thread.

[The-Shoveler]

When you are working and you can’t feed and get medicine for your kid’s

Well you will throw a stone at something.
The only thing that has prevented it so far is food stamps and Medi-Cal.

[livinincali]

[quote=The-Shoveler]If it were not for food-stamps and medi-Cal the walmart and mcd’s workers would have been throwing stones a long time ago.[/quote]

Why must we constantly insist that every job in America must pay a wage that allows someone to support themselves living alone or even better a family. There’s plenty of zero skill labor in America that wants to work part time for discretionary income and experience. There’s plenty of businesses that want to hire those people. Those businesses don’t seem to be experiencing any shortages of labor because there’s plenty of people in households that do not need to be the sole breadwinner.

Why do we constantly insist on trying to tell everybody else what to do. Lets force businesses to pay more for employees and when they cut/replace employees then we can argue about how it’s a good idea to force businesses to hire employees. You’re never going to win this game via forced government policy because every step you take makes it harder for an employer to employee people. You worry that McDonald’s might make too much money but you have no consideration for how much harder you just made it for Joe the Pizza guy to start his 2nd restaurant.

[SK in CV]

No SDR, I wasn’t the least bit confused about anything in this thread. You were the one that said employees aren’t entitled to their pay. You were the first to bring up the issue of pay relating to taking care of a family. You are now the one that is arguing that the terms of a contract should not be set by the needs of an employee, when neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever claimed it was an issue.

[SD Realtor]

Your not having enough for food and medicine is not their fault. For every honest hard working poor person that you are depicting here, there are others who are drug addicts, junkies, and slackers who are in the same boat and enjoying those same government benefits.

The bottom line is that medicare, and food stamps are exactly the situation that you have described. It is not the responsibility of Walmart or McDonalds.

My wife employs people and so do I. We don’t pay them based on their needs. Neither should any corporation.

[SD Realtor]

Seems like everyone who was reading the thread knew exactly what I was talking about and the point I was making SK. Only you were the one who was confused. Hopefully you now understand and are up to speed.

[Author]

Posts