Sell the LCBO now.

[err]

"Fair market value", as determined by whom... the employer ?? or how about a union...  Because without the union, the employer's version of "fair market value" is what usually holds, and with a union in place, the employee's perspective gets a little more weight...

"Fair market value" as determined by the...oh shit...MARKET OF LABOUR. An employer doesn't determine wages, as i"ve said a million times already.

The employer tries to determine the wage. Face it... not everyone can get into a union shop... there are many skilled workers, who out of desparation to put food on their family's table, will take one of these substandard jobs. Desparation on the part of the unemployed is something that many employers take advantage of... Desparation and your "fair market"

Every single employer on the planet would love to only have to spend minimum wage on their labour, it'd really reduce their expenses.  Too bad that's not how it works

Yes... this is one of the realities that I'm talking about. It is one of the reasons that unions have not "outlived their usefulness"... as you would put it...

No one forces you to take a job with terrible wages and no benefits, you make the conscious choice of applying and staying with a company that doesn't offer you shit.

Once again.... when people get desparate because they need to put food on their family's table, pay rent, etc... they often have to stoop to taking these jobs. Your "Fair Market" forces people to take substandard jobs....

As far as holidays go, the union has nothing to do with that.  Once again, statutory holidays are regulated by the government.

In the automotive sector.... they get a lot better holiday schedule than the mandated statutory holiday list....

[err]

And lots of booze and parties is, like, really cool, is it Dude ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that's it is it? You just want to push your beliefs and morality on other people instead of letting them choose for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just getting to know who I'm dealing with... how is that pushing my beliefs...

[Renegade]

I think it would be a great idea for the government to take over many things, such as automobile insurance. It would probably be a great idea for them to more stringently regulate the pharmaceutical industry... There are plenty of other areas of "human necessity" where the goverment should take a more active role. Luxury items such as automobiles don't fit that bill....

err, thank-you for addressing the question.

I'm curious why you distinguish industries by "human necessity" and "luxury". Would not all the arguments you previously made apply to "luxury" industries?. By your argument doesn't a clerk working in the "luxury" automobile industry deserve the same "good jobs" that someone in automobile insurance does?

Since you have distinguished between "human necessity" and "luxury" as your criteria for if an industry should be publicly owned, I am also curious how you have come to the conclusion that the LCBO is a "human necessity"?

[Renegade]

Once again.... when people get desparate because they need to put food on their family's table, pay rent, etc... they often have to stoop to taking these jobs. Your "Fair Market" forces people to take substandard jobs....

You are missing the point that necessity and desparation is a two way street. There are times where business are desparate for certain workers, and there are huge economic implications of not filing those jobs. As a result the wage offers for those positions will rise to meet the need. In any case if a worker takes a position out of desparation, why does it have to be a long term situation. That worker should realize that they are in a position which has low market value and is easily replacable. That worker has the option to upgrade skills or change occupation to differentiate themselves from the rest of the labour pool. It is only if they CHOOSE to do nothing, will they be in a position of desparation and that would be a situation of their own making.

[BHS]

And lots of booze and parties is, like, really cool, is it Dude ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that's it is it? You just want to push your beliefs and morality on other people instead of letting them choose for themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just getting to know who I'm dealing with... how is that pushing my beliefs...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're going to take a joke post and use it to justify dumbing down your assessment of my opinions, then I don't really know if it's worth arguing with you. You clearly have a concrete set of opinions, that in light of your lack of humour aren't worth the effort of responding to. The only reason I'm posting this is to let the other members reading this thread know why I'm not bothering to respond to anything else you have to say about this issue.

[BHS]

I think it would be a great idea for the government to take over many things, such as automobile insurance. It would probably be a great idea for them to more stringently regulate the pharmaceutical industry... There are plenty of other areas of "human necessity" where the goverment should take a more active role. Luxury items such as automobiles don't fit that bill....

err, thank-you for addressing the question.

I'm curious why you distinguish industries by "human necessity" and "luxury". Would not all the arguments you previously made apply to "luxury" industries?. By your argument doesn't a clerk working in the "luxury" automobile industry deserve the same "good jobs" that someone in automobile insurance does?

Since you have distinguished between "human necessity" and "luxury" as your criteria for if an industry should be publicly owned, I am also curious how you have come to the conclusion that the LCBO is a "human necessity"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason err isn't concerned about the automobile industry is because it's already thoroughly unionized without government interference. If the big three automakers ever manage to go the route of personal contracts the way Toyota apparently does, you can bet he'll be calling for re-unionization.

[cybercoma]

Once again.... when people get desparate because they need to put food on their family's table, pay rent, etc... they often have to stoop to taking these jobs. Your "Fair Market" forces people to take substandard jobs....

You are missing the point that necessity and desparation is a two way street. There are times where business are desparate for certain workers, and there are huge economic implications of not filing those jobs. As a result the wage offers for those positions will rise to meet the need. In any case if a worker takes a position out of desparation, why does it have to be a long term situation. That worker should realize that they are in a position which has low market value and is easily replacable. That worker has the option to upgrade skills or change occupation to differentiate themselves from the rest of the labour pool. It is only if they CHOOSE to do nothing, will they be in a position of desparation and that would be a situation of their own making.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beat me to it. I just don't think err understands the idea that labour has value. He has been misguided into thinking wages are arbitrary and able to fluctuate at the whim of the employer. I've tried explaining it every way i know how, but he either doesn't want to understand or is simply too thick for anything to sink in.

[Renegade]

sorry cybercoma, didn't mean to steal your thunder. Maybe I should just bite my lip and stick to post directed at me..

[cybercoma]

sorry cybercoma, didn't mean to steal your thunder. Maybe I should just bite my lip and stick to post directed at me..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said it 100x better than I could've anyway. I'm just getting frustrated at err's refusal to understand basic principles of trade. He doesn't see labour as something to be bought and sold. We should all be slaves to the state because they know what's best for us.

[Guest eureka]

Cybercoma, your rants about uniobs are simply nonsensical rants. There is no merit at all to your argument.

Labour and Employment Standard Laws are on the books because of unions not Acts of altruism on the part of employers and governmetns. They are under attack by the "Right" now because of the weakness of unions. Harris in Ontario weakened the Standards and in America they have been watered down considerably.

Unions in all the Anglo-Saxon countries have been declining in membership and influence for several decades. In Canada, only about 30% of workers are unionized and in America it is only 12%. There is a grave need for the revival of unionism to counter the assault of the "Right" led by your two-legged cavalry.

Your references to jobs that "any monkey" can do and if people want more, they should upgrade their skills, sould embarrass any with human sensibilites. Those doing these jobs, jobs that have to be done, are people not monkeys and they have the same needs as you. Where does upgrading skills enter into any discussion of "fair" wages? Those who are ab;e to upgrade skills may do so and put pressure on your job thus bringing down your remuneration to some fantasy market value. How does the value of your work fluctuate with the number of people available to compete with you for your job?

"The labourer is worthy of his hire" and human worth can only be measured in terms of human need not in the fiction of a non-existent marketplace. The marketplace is a fiction invented to cover the range of human economic activities. Even the inventor of the term understood this. Humans are human and your elitist, superior attirude has no place in human affairs.

You are enough to arouse a Communist movement. Not just you, though. All the Right Wing posters with their conviction that life is merely a part of an economic system make my flesh creep.

[BHS]

Keep up the good work, guys.

[Renegade]

Everyone, (and I really mean BOTH sides of this discussion) please let's take it down a notch in terms of the name calling and disparaging remarks. Personal attacks have no place in a debate and detract from the issues. I understand that it is easy to get passionate, but let's keep it civil shall we?

[err]

Beat me to it.  I just don't think err understands the idea that labour has value.  He has been misguided into thinking wages are arbitrary and able to fluctuate at the whim of the employer.  I've tried explaining it every way i know how, but he either doesn't want to understand or is simply too thick for anything to sink in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee... I don't understand that labour has value... Like the labour of those working at the LCBO. I value their labour, and so does the government of Ontario. They provide good value for my money, and I'm glad that they are well paid. Their wage isn't arbitrary, as you would suggest that I think. I think that they have a good wage, and I'm glad that the government pays them well enough to have a decent living.

Unlike you mean-spirited conservatives who are jealous that they make more money than you, I appreciate the value of labour. I'm certainly glad that conservatives like you are not in power to try to ruin the lives of everybody that you are jealous of... Like Mike Harris did....

[Riverwind]

Gee... I don't understand that labour has value... Like the labour of those working at the LCBO.  I value their labour, and so does the government of Ontario.  They provide good value for my money, and I'm glad that they are well paid.  Their wage isn't arbitrary, as you would suggest that I think.  I think that they have a good wage, and I'm glad that the government pays them well enough to have a decent living.

What you don't seem to get is unions that are negotiating with government employer have an unfair advantage (because their employer cannot go out of business) and, as a result, they are able to negotiate wages that are much higher than they should be.

The difference between a fair market wage and the LBO wages represents a government subsidy that is payed to a few workers. To be fair, if the government is going to subsidizes the wages of retail clerks it should offer low income tax reductions that would help all retail clerks instead of those lucky enough to work for the LBO.

[err]

We should all be slaves to the state because they know what's best for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow... how did you read that from anything I have said. I don't think you should have to work for the state... In fact, with the attitudes that your espouse, I would recommend that they never hire you.

I don't see how you can have the perspective that you are a slave to the state. The state gives you health care (that over 100,000 US citizens die from not having... every year, and that bankrupts hundreds of thousands of US citizens per year). The state gives you a security blanket with unemployment insurance, should your company purchase a machine that makes you redundant. The state gives you an infrastructure from which you can get clean water, electricity, security, warmth... and the list goes on. And what do you give the state for all this... a piddly $600/month (or was that Hugo).... and you bitch and complain like a spurned old maid....

I personally would like to pay less in taxes than I do, but by attacking the bottom people on the chain is not the way to do it... These LCBO employees don't make that much money.... You should set your sites on the high dollar political-corporate criminals who really cost us money... you should set your sites on policies that cost us big time.... Not the piddly few dollars more per hour that the LCBO employee makes more than you....

[err]

What you don't seem to get is unions that are negotiating with government employer have an unfair advantage (because their employer cannot go out of business) and, as a result, they are able to negotiate wages that are much higher than they should be.

Let's look at the other side of the coin.... Their employer (the government) can't go out of business.... so the employer can wait... and wait... for the union to give in... can't they. A real business has to weigh the reality of the potential of bankrupcy due to cash-flow stoppage, and therefore doesn't have the luxury that the government has.... Nor the said advantage over their employees.

However, I'm glad that the government doesn't use slave labour... because it's not a far cry from minimum wage labour....

[Renegade]

How does the value of your work fluctuate with the number of people available to compete with you for your job.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Value of work very much does fluctate base upon it's replacability. Think of it this way, each individual is an entrepreur. The goods he has to sell is is labour. The market is employers looking to buy that labour. That labour is only worth what the market is willing to pay. If that labour pool is large relative to demand, then the labour has little value. The value of the labour is always relative.

[err]

Value of work very much does fluctate base upon it's replacability.  Think of it this way, each individual is an entrepreur. The goods he has to sell is is labour. The market is employers looking to buy that labour. That labour is only worth what the market is willing to pay. If that labour pool is large relative to demand, then the labour has little value. The value of the labour is always relative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can think of it another way. Loyalty of an employee is worth something to a company. If the company has to spend time training, etc... that is a real material cost to the employer. In a minimum wage position, the employees loyalty is quite often close to zero.

If the employee is well paid, they are more likely to be consciencious of being punctual, reliable, etc... If the employee is the company's customer interface person, there are further considerations. Many customers like dealing with a familiar face, so keeping employees longterm is a benefit. Having a disgruntled customer interface person usually does not work well....

If the employee sees that they are treated as a mere commodity, then usually, the employee sees the job as a commodity....

[Renegade]

You can think of it another way. Loyalty of an employee is worth something to a company. If the company has to spend time training, etc... that is a real material cost to the employer. In a minimum wage position, the employees loyalty is quite often close to zero.

We are saying somewhat similar things, except that loyality doesn't command much of a premium in some jobs because the labour is easily replacable. Where an employer invest in training etc, the wage will correspondingly rise to account for the increased value of that employee and lack of easy replacability.

If the employee is well paid, they are more likely to be consciencious of being punctual, reliable, etc... If the employee is the company's customer interface person, there are further considerations. Many customers like dealing with a familiar face, so keeping employees longterm is a benefit. Having a disgruntled customer interface person usually does not work well....

If the employee sees that they are treated as a mere commodity, then usually, the employee sees the job as a commodity....

Yes and employers and the market will price labour according to the kind of skills the wish to attract and retain. By skills, I mean inn addition to skills required to perform the job, soft skills such as being consciencious of being punctual, reliable, etc.. , as required by the job.

[Renegade]

I'm curious why you distinguish industries by "human necessity" and "luxury". Would not all the arguments you previously made apply to "luxury" industries?. By your argument doesn't a clerk working in the "luxury" automobile industry deserve the same "good jobs" that someone in automobile insurance does?

Since you have distinguished between "human necessity" and "luxury" as your criteria for if an industry should be publicly owned, I am also curious how you have come to the conclusion that the LCBO is a "human necessity"?

err, since you are here, how about answering the questions above?

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, your rants about uniobs are simply nonsensical rants. There is no merit at all to your argument.

Labour and Employment Standard Laws are on the books because of unions not Acts of altruism on the part of employers and governmetns. They are under attack by the "Right" now because of the weakness of unions. Harris in Ontario weakened the Standards and in America they have been watered down considerably.

Unions in all the Anglo-Saxon countries have been declining in membership and influence for several decades. In Canada, only about 30% of workers are unionized and in America it is only 12%. There is a grave need for the revival of unionism to counter the assault of the "Right" led by your two-legged cavalry.

Your references to jobs that "any monkey" can do and if people want more, they should upgrade their skills, sould embarrass any with human sensibilites. Those doing these jobs, jobs that have to be done, are people not monkeys and they have the same needs as you. Where does upgrading skills enter into any discussion of "fair" wages? Those who are ab;e to upgrade skills may do so and put pressure on your job thus bringing down your remuneration to some fantasy market value. How does the value of your work fluctuate with the number of people available to compete with you for your job?

"The labourer is worthy of his hire" and human worth can only be measured in terms of human need not in the fiction of a non-existent marketplace. The marketplace is a fiction invented to cover the range of human economic activities. Even the inventor of the term understood this. Humans are human and your elitist, superior attirude has no place in human affairs.

You are enough to arouse a Communist movement. Not just you, though. All the Right Wing posters with their conviction that life is merely a part of an economic system make my flesh creep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unions were the reason for Employment Standards and Occupational Health and Safety; however, they're in place now and the government protects our contracts with our employers.

The voting public should be the ones lobbying if the government tries to take away our legal rights as far as employment standards and safety are concerned. Look at the way the french protested when one of their statutory holidays was taken away so the government could make more in taxes.

I find it hard to believe you don't understand how the number of people able and willing to do a job causes the value of their labour to go down. And we're talking about "labour' here, not "human worth" as you're so willing to sidetrack into, but the service people offer their employer as something to be traded for money.

Labour is just like anything else, the less there is there more it costs to buy. If you want to make more money, you need to have specialized skills that are hard to come by.

[Black Dog]

Unions were the reason for Employment Standards and Occupational Health and Safety; however, they're in place now and the government protects our contracts with our employers.

Isn't that unecessary government interference in the free market? Surely employers, and not some bureaucrat, are in the best position to determine whether workplaces are safe and wages adequate compensation for the work performed.

Labour is just like anything else, the less there is there more it costs to buy. If you want to make more money, you need to have specialized skills that are hard to come by.

The problem with free market analysis of labour as a commodity is that it neglects the basic reality that labour=people. And people will not always behave as the market dictates they should. For instance people will take jobs that are dangerous or low-paying out of necessity. Taken to its logical conclusion, then, the free market analysis of labour is a recipe for indentured servitude (the term "wage-slave" was coined for that reason).

[Renegade]

The problem with free market analysis of labour as a commodity is that it neglects the basic reality that labour=people.

Yes, of course labour=people but that is irrelevant for the economics of the situation. Why is it do you think that people are replaced by machines when the economics warrant it? It is because whether it is labour or it is capital it is simply input into the means of production, and many times they are interchangable. Harsh? Yes, but also reality.

And people will not always behave as the market dictates they should. For instance people will take jobs that are dangerous or low-paying out of necessity.

Why is it do you think that people take jobs out of necessity? Because they have no choice. So why is it that they have no choice, when there are a million occupations at all different wage scales and skill levels? Think about it.

People taking a job out of necessity is a behaviour wihich is EXACTLY what the market dictates.

Taken to its logical conclusion, then, the free market analysis of labour is a recipe for indentured servitude (the term "wage-slave" was coined for that reason).

I looked up the definition of "indentured servitude":

Indentured Servitude, work under an unbreakable contract for a fixed period, in return for room and board, training, or pay.

In our economic system where is the "unbreakable contract". Certainly not between the worker and the employer. It has been repeated over and over that the worker is free to terminate his employment and choose to work elsewhere. The fact that he does not, shows that he is willingly exchanging labour for pay.

I looked up the definition of wage-slave as well. There are a couple of definitions. I believe the one which you mean is:

Wageslave can also denote a worker who has no choice in who they work for, or in the type of job they can get; either due to economic and geographic circumstances, or due to personal lack of competence or education.

Workers in our society are not bound to who they work for, are free to educate themselves to undertake the occupation of their choosing, and are free to relocate to take a job, so how exactly does that make them wage-slaves?

[Black Dog]

Why is it do you think that people take jobs out of necessity? Because they have no choice. So why is it that they have no choice, when there are a million occupations at all different wage scales and skill levels? Think about it.

People taking a job out of necessity is a behaviour wihich is EXACTLY what the market dictates.

But if the market provides choices, how can you say that there is no choice? Something doesn't add up.

Workers in our society are not bound to who they work for, are free to educate themselves to undertake the occupation of their choosing, and are free to relocate to take a job, so how exactly does that make them wage-slaves?

Hmm. Could it be that market explanations don't account for things like social inequalities, class etc.

In other words, despite the market rhetoric, there are other forces which act to limit individual's choices.

[Renegade]

But if the market provides choices, how can you say that there is no choice? Something doesn't add up.

The market does provide choices but people do need to plan to exercise those choices. (eg education, skills training, geographic relocation). When someone takes a low-wage job because they have "no choice", they only have "no choice" in the short term. They have the choices the market offers in the long term.

Hmm. Could it be that market explanations don't account for things like social inequalities, class etc.

In other words, despite the market rhetoric, there are other forces which act to limit individual's choices.

Of course there are factors beyond anyones control which limit individual choices. I'd like to be a model, but my looks may not be good enough to allow me that choice. Eveyone has limiting factors which affect their choices. So what. We still all make choices based upon what is available. It would be hard to believe that with the vast number of choices available someone cannot find an acceptable one.