Sell the LCBO now.

[err]

Of all the people I've ever known who've worked a union job, the vast majority either hate the company they work for or the union, bust most often they hate both. Their entire work lives have been made bitter by poisonous management/union relations that are forever being made worse by ridiculous grievances and unreasonable wage and job security demands, which is all the unions have left to justify their existances in this day and age in the industrialized world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know of several people who work at either Ford or GM. Most of them have fairly good lives, with all of the latest toys, holidays, etc... If it weren't for the unions, their lives would not be nearly so good.

Why should we pay someone more than minimum wage if they're just tighening bolts on an assembly line... Or to quote Cybercoma from a few weeks back.... "some guy pushing a broom for $18/hour"

I imagine if the union stepped out of the way, these same people would become slightly more bitter and poisoned.... In fact you'd probably hear the howls for many miles. Because it wouldn't take long before the wage reductions were installed, the job security removed, and the working conditions harshened.

[err]

PS "illegal" embargo? Please. How many times have you been prevented from vacationing in Cuba?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might not know this, but you CANNOT fly to Cuba from the United States. You cannot do business with Cuba if you are a resident of the United States. This embargo has been in place for over 40 years.

I was not suggesting that Canada is the country that is responsible for the illegal embargo against Cuba....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many American citizens will fly to Canada -> Cuba or Mexico -> Cuba to go there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Besides which, a law passed by the US government barring it's citizenry from travelling to a particular isn't unconstitutional, and therefore not illegal. Unless you're from Planet Turtle Bay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the United Nations, implementation of such an embargo for such an extended period of time is, according to international law, illegal.

The fact that some Americans go through Canada or Mexico to visit Cuba does not change the fact that the USA has an embargo, and will not allow flights to leave the USA and travel to Cuba..... This embargo has kept the people of Cuba poor...

In this way, the US can blame the "failure of communism" and other left-leaning governing styles for keeping the people poor....

[cybercoma]

I know of several people who work at either Ford or GM.  Most of them have fairly good lives, with all of the latest toys, holidays, etc...  If it weren't for the unions, their lives would not be nearly so good.

The auto industry is an integral part of this city and people are losing their jobs because of the union's demands. Only those who've been employed for decades get the good secure jobs, everyone else is worried about the next round of layoffs. So, you're right, people are making a lot of money but a lot of people have lost their jobs to support those wages and benefits and the companies are going bankrupt to support them.

I imagine if the union stepped out of the way, these same people would become slightly more bitter and poisoned....  In fact you'd probably hear the howls for many miles.  Because it wouldn't take long before the wage reductions were installed, the job security removed, and the working conditions harshened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not advocating that any of these people make minimum wage because I know from first hand experience how difficult these jobs are. They destroy your body if you're there for years and those are only the guys who make it that far. Tightening bolts on a car for 8 hours a day is terribly mind numbing, almost enouogh to drive any man insane.

Anyhow, having gotten that out of the way.

Let them howl. If they hate their job that much, they can quit. They're not required to work there. If an employer provides terrible working conditions, no job security and pays terrible wages the employee should quit and find an employer that offers those things.

[BHS]

According to the United Nations, implementation of such an embargo for such an extended period of time is, according to international law, illegal.

The fact that some Americans go through Canada or Mexico to visit Cuba does not change the fact that the USA has an embargo, and will not allow flights to leave the USA and travel to Cuba.....  This embargo has kept the people of Cuba poor...

In this way, the US can blame the "failure of communism" and other left-leaning governing styles for keeping the people poor....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything about embargoes becoming illegal over time, but I didn't have time to read through the UN Charter or the latest WTO rulings on the matter. You're going to have to supply some more details.

Cuba is still free to trade with Europe and Canda and Mexico and South America, and they do. You're employing the same logic that says the Israeli wall is illegal in part because it doesn't allow "Palestinian" Arabs in to Israel to work. How is Israel particularly responsible for "Palestinian" economic well being, any more than Canada is? How is America responsible for the Cuban economy?

Communism is a failure because it is fatally flawed. It is based on the notion that if you take away individual rights and responsibilities, and you take away private property and the incentive of individual wealth creation, people will still work hard just because it's the right thing to do. Communism fails because individual success and failure are irrelevant under that system. A successful nation is comprised of successful individuals.

[Renegade]

I have to commend it to you, err, you did a good job of diverting the thread into a discussion on embargos to Cuba and other issues when you did not address the arguments put to you on LCBO privitazation.

The same question was put to you 3 times by different posters which you declined or were unable to answer.

You've resorted to stating that posters have "mean-spirited conservative attitudes", when all that has been put to you is a case for privitazation against which you have been unable to defend.

I understand your point. You feel sorry for the LCBO employees because their well-paid jobs would be threatned by privatization. A noble sentiment to be sure, but it is unclear to me why the LCBO employees should not have to compete in the same free-market economy as the rest of us. LCBO employees can protect their wages even under privitazation but it would require them to take actions on their part, such as upgrading their skills or entering a profession where there is market demand.

[err]

The auto industry is an integral part of this city and people are losing their jobs because of the union's demands.  Only those who've been employed for decades get the good secure jobs, everyone else is worried about the next round of layoffs.  So, you're right, people are making a lot of money but a lot of people have lost their jobs to support those wages and benefits and the companies are going bankrupt to support them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of the job loss in the Canadian auto industry is due to downturns in sales. As you have noted in another forum, the auto industry prefers Ontario over Michigan. They're going to make the cars... either here or in the USA... and they prefer here...

I'm not advocating that any of these people make minimum wage because I know from first hand experience how difficult these jobs are.  They destroy your body if you're there for years and those are only the guys who make it that far.  Tightening bolts on a car for 8 hours a day is terribly mind numbing, almost enouogh to drive any man insane.

What a nice piece of drama writing... Actually, the jobs aren't too bad. They rotate between jobs so no-one is stuck in the same job for more than an hour at a stretch... Because of the unions, working conditions are very good.

Let them howl.  If they hate their job that much, they can quit.  They're not required to work there.  If an employer provides terrible working conditions, no job security and pays terrible wages the employee should quit and find an employer that offers those things.

I had suggested that they (the workers) would howl if the union stepped out of the way and their wages and working conditions dropped to where you would advocate.... The unions are what keep Ontario's auto workers from Indonesian style working conditions. They (the unions) also keep morale up at work, with good working conditions... and is probably why Oshawa's GM plant has been rated the most productive GM plant in North America for several years running now....

[err]

I have to commend it to you, err, you did a good job of diverting the thread into a discussion on embargos to Cuba and other issues when you did not address the arguments put to you on LCBO privitazation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was Hugo that brought up the point that in Russia, Cuba, their economies failed, and was attributing such failure to government controlled industries. When I clarified reasons for failure in the said countries, your claws came out....

You've resorted to stating that posters have "mean-spirited conservative attitudes", when all that has been put to you is a case for privitazation against which you have been unable to defend.

I believe that I have previously addressed the issues a day or two ago... However, the big drive to "stop those parasites from getting overpaid" seems to be driven by other than practical interest in our economy.

I understand your point. You feel sorry for the LCBO employees because their well-paid jobs would be threatned by privatization. A noble sentiment to be sure, but it is unclear to me why the LCBO employees should not have to compete in the same free-market economy as the rest of us. LCBO employees can protect their wages even under privitazation but it would require them to take actions on their part, such as upgrading their skills or entering a profession where there is market demand.

You suggest that LCBO employees do not have to compete in the same free-market economy as the rest of us.... Do they not have to compete with other people trying to get these "decent jobs". You go on to suggest that they should upgrade their skills or enter another profession before they can make $17/hour ???? $17/hour.... come on... that is not a professional wage...

[Renegade]

err, you seem to have an inflated view of wage rates. Have a look at this link:

Sales and Service Occupations

Admittedly this survey is a little out of date (from 1999), but as you can see a cashier is not considered a high-skilled, high in-demand occupation and thus commands a hourly rate of $7-$9 per hour. As you can also see from the table there are plenty of occupations with higher rates, a cashier looking to enhance their earnings has opportunity to do so by adjusting their occupation.

[Hugo]

USSR - Bankrupted by cold war with United States.

USA - Not bankrupted by cold war with USSR. Why?

CUBA - Economically choked by ongoing illegal US embargo

USA - Besides Israel, only country to have an embargo with Cuba. The USA and Israel control every resource, good and service in the entire world, now? Is this going to be another one of those illuminaughty conspiracy threads?

A parasitic existance.... you guys really seem to have it out for anyone who is paid enough to survive.... $34K/year

I know people without a high school diploma who make that without it being subsidized through taxpayers. My company employs about 500 of them.

you begrudge that income... and call them parasites

No, I call them "parasites" because part of their money is not derived from free exchange but by forcible expropriation under threat of violence. If the LCBO employees are not parasites, then neither are car thieves.

how come you don't have a job that pays a huge take-home pay of about $2000/month... not enough for a mortgage on a shack if you have to buy diapers an pay to run an automobile

$2000 per month is enough to have a house and a car. Not a mansion and a BMW, but what do you expect? It'd be even better if the government wasn't confiscating about $600 in taxes every month off it to support people like the LCBO employees.

I think it is a good thing that the government doesn't embrace slave labour (minimum wage labour)

The government does embrace slave labour. To be a slave is to unwillingly be forced to work for someone else. The Canadian Government makes the average Canadian work for them for about half their working lives, whether they like it or not, on pain of imprisonment and expropriation (penalty up to 5 years in jail and up to double the amount they originally tried to confiscate).

Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. Let me try again:

If the government owning the LCBO is such a good idea, why not extend it to automobile dealerships, food stores, hell why not the entire retail industry?

Can you read that OK?

[Hugo]

Hell, make minimum wage $17 per hour. Do you know what will happen? The cost of everything will skyrocket as companies are forced to pay for their increased payroll demands. Which means that the buying value of a dollar will decrease

It also means that everybody whose labour is worth less than $17 per hour and cannot be made worth more than $17 per hour will be fired the next day. Fiat minimum wage basically just buys unemployment.

The last time the US Government raised minimum wage by 50 cents it was followed by almost 500,000 layoffs. Most of these were amongst teenagers, single mothers and blacks.

But to play the same tactics as our friend Err, that's probably because he hates single mothers and blacks. Right? After all, we're just greedy, evil conservatives because we advocate these things, so he must be a racist misogynist.

[cybercoma]

I had suggested that they (the workers) would howl if the union stepped out of the way and their wages and working conditions dropped to where you would advocate....

First things first, where do I advocate that their wages be? You seem to think minimum wage, which is ridiculously obtuse on your part.

I suggest that their salary reflect the fair market value for those jobs. If there aren't enough qualified people willing to do the job for minimum wage, then that's not what they'll make. Arbitrarily making up wages because everyone should live comfortably is a recipe for disaster for all the reasons that have already been said (and subsequently igored by you) in this thread.

So take a second to understand what I'm saying instead of putting words on my keyboard.

The unions are what keep Ontario's auto workers from Indonesian style working conditions.

The Employment Standards Act, The Ontario Health and Safety Act, The Ministry of Labour...look into them. We have laws in this province and country that keep workers from having to endure Indonesian style working conditions. Comparing the two is nothing short of idiotic.

They (the unions) also keep morale up at work, with good working conditions... and is probably why Oshawa's GM plant has been rated the most productive GM plant in North America for several years running now....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Show me one worker who will attest to the unions keeping morale up and I'll show you two that absolutely despise the unions for protecting worthless employees that make their jobs more difficult.

Oshawa isn't unique compared to Windsor or any other city with autofactories. They all have unions, so having one isn't any indication to how productive a plant will be.

[BHS]

But to play the same tactics as our friend Err, that's probably because he hates single mothers and blacks. Right? After all, we're just greedy, evil conservatives because we advocate these things, so he must be a racist misogynist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He'll just argue that employers should be forced to keep employees for a minimum period of time after a minimum wage hike, even if it means bankruptcy. Why should he care about greedy business owners losing their lives' works, as long as the unskilled labour get their (overpriced) beer money?

[Black Dog]

Calgary economist Greg Flanagan did a study in 2003 of Alberta's liquor privatization. Now, according to the free market model, wages should have gone down as the number of retailers went up, while prices should have shrunk. But prices haven't changed.

So the resuly has been, more liquor stores, higher prices and lower wages. Where's the benefit?

[BHS]

Calgary economist Greg Flanagan did a study in 2003 of Alberta's liquor privatization. Now, according to the free market model, wages should have gone down as the number of retailers went up, while prices should have shrunk. But prices haven't changed.

So the resuly has been, more liquor stores, higher prices and lower wages.  Where's the benefit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, more liquor stores!

[Hugo]

He'll just argue that employers should be forced to keep employees for a minimum period of time after a minimum wage hike, even if it means bankruptcy.

I wonder how he plans to protect those employees who will all lose their jobs when their employer goes bankrupt under this legislation. He'll probably advocate new taxes to pay all their unemployment benefits, which means even less real income for those actually working.

Net result: businesses closed, real wages not really any higher and lots more unemployed. Same old socialist policies, screwing the little guy. Of course, the politicians who do all this get to keep their jobs, and they can blame all their own failings on capitalism, as they usually do.

So the resuly has been, more liquor stores, higher prices and lower wages. Where's the benefit?

Again, if State-run enterprise is truly the way to go, why aren't we running the whole economy that way?

[Black Dog]

Again, if State-run enterprise is truly the way to go, why aren't we running the whole economy that way?

I didn't say it was the way to go, did I? I simply pointed out the Alberta model hasn't delivered. The provincial government has micromanaged the marketplace, retaining the right to tax booze, setting the rules as to who can open liquor stores and placing arbitrary restrictions on grocery stores. It's superficial privatization, poltically motivated (I recall the first people to get the OK to open private liquor outlets were Tory affiliates-such is crony capitalism in Alberta) and ultimately pointless.

[Guest eureka]

Isn't it ironic how those who are fortunate enough to be comfortably employed without benefit of unions will spend so much time vilifying unions? Would they not be well advised to ask their parents who went through the Depression and the struggles of the 40's and 50's when unions won the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to?

It is possibly a little much to expect them to go further back into history when unions brought their slightly further back ancestors out of just the Third World misery they think should be the lot of workers in those industries where unions still protect the employees from the reaction to unions that is the neoliberal drive.

Why would the privatization of the LCBO (or any other) lead to market wages - whatever that silly expression really means? The employees now are at an appropriate level since everything they have is negotiated and freely agreed. The auto industry, and many others, are now in some trouble, not because wages are too high but because Capital has embraced the misnamed "Globalism" in finding sources where workers have not yet won decent conditions and pay.

These industries are not analogous to the LCBO since they are dependent on the import of goods made by cheap labour - and some on secondary cheap, non-unionized, labour in Canada.

[err]

USA - Besides Israel, only country to have an embargo with Cuba. The USA and Israel control every resource, good and service in the entire world, now? Is this going to be another one of those illuminaughty conspiracy threads?

Think about it geographically... you can pull up a map from the internet, and see the sizes and proximities of the surrounding countries....and what big country's shadow that they live in... You might want to try www.maps.google.com

I know people without a high school diploma who make that without it being subsidized through taxpayers. My company employs about 500 of them.

It's funny to see a business owner like yourself (as your quote would imply) spending so much time arguing on the internet.... Business slow ???

So if it is OK for uneducated people in the private sector to make more than $17/hour, why then is it such a problem in the public sector?????

No, I call them "parasites" because part of their money is not derived from free exchange but by forcible expropriation under threat of violence. If the LCBO employees are not parasites, then neither are car thieves.

Your venum is going to boil... seething hatred for someone who applies for and gets a reasonable job... not an outstanding job, because they want to pay their rent....

Under theat of violence ???? I'll have to pay attention for the man with the gun at the next LCBO that I visit... thanks for the tip.

Are you sure that some of the money you earn is subsidized.... For example, your company doesnt have to pay for health insurance do they? They dont get electricity on an infrastructure that was paid for by tax dollars ???

$2000 per month is enough to have a house and a car. Not a mansion and a BMW, but what do you expect? It'd be even better if the government wasn't confiscating about $600 in taxes every month off it to support people like the LCBO employees.

I'll concede... a tiny house and a small second-hand car perhaps... (imagine begrudging that)... By the way Hugo, what is "it"... your paycheque ??

The government does embrace slave labour. To be a slave is to unwillingly be forced to work for someone else. The Canadian Government makes the average Canadian work for them for about half their working lives, whether they like it or not, on pain of imprisonment and expropriation (penalty up to 5 years in jail and up to double the amount they originally tried to confiscate).

You assume that for the taxes you pay, that you get nothing.... I beg to differ... You get an infrastructure that can support the company where you work, so that you can have a job. You get roads on which to travel. You get policemen to help make your existence safer. You get schools to educate you and your children. You get clean water to drink.... Man, could you imagine if you were plopped down in the bush... how much of your life would you have to work to achieve these things.... You couldn't do it. So I think you should be grateful for the things that you have, and for all of the taxpayers that have, like yourself, cooperatively paid for such an infrastructure that allows you the freedoms you have...

Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. Let me try again:

If the government owning the LCBO is such a good idea, why not extend it to automobile dealerships, food stores, hell why not the entire retail industry?

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....

[Riverwind]

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....

Luxury items such a booze would also fall into that category of things the government should not be selling.

[err]

I suggest that their salary reflect the fair market value for those jobs.  If there aren't enough qualified people willing to do the job for minimum wage, then that's not what they'll make.  Arbitrarily making up wages because everyone should live comfortably is a recipe for disaster for all the reasons that have already been said (and subsequently igored by you) in this thread.

"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...

To quote YOU from a few weeks back... "Why should someone get paid $18/hour for pushing a broom at an automotive plant"... Should he get minimum wage ??? Extending this, how much should a guy make who just has to tighten bolts all day... doesn't take much of a brain, so why should he make more than minimum wage ??

Show me one worker who will attest to the unions keeping morale up and I'll show you two that absolutely despise the unions for protecting worthless employees that make their jobs more difficult.

Maybe the union itself doesn't keep morale up... but a healthy paycheque, excellent benefits, and good holiday time probably help keep morale up... especially when you compare it to non-union jobs....

[err]

Calgary economist Greg Flanagan did a study in 2003 of Alberta's liquor privatization. Now, according to the free market model, wages should have gone down as the number of retailers went up, while prices should have shrunk. But prices haven't changed.

So the resuly has been, more liquor stores, higher prices and lower wages.  Where's the benefit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, more liquor stores!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Hugo]

I didn't say it was the way to go, did I? I simply pointed out the Alberta model hasn't delivered. The provincial government has micromanaged the marketplace, retaining the right to tax booze, setting the rules as to who can open liquor stores and placing arbitrary restrictions on grocery stores. It's superficial privatization, poltically motivated (I recall the first people to get the OK to open private liquor outlets were Tory affiliates-such is crony capitalism in Alberta) and ultimately pointless.

True indeed. We know a priori what the viability of a planned economy is. If the free market does not behave as we know, a priori, that it will, it therefore isn't a free market.

Think about it geographically... you can pull up a map from the internet, and see the sizes and proximities of the surrounding countries....and what big country's shadow that they live in

In an age when a car or an aeroplane is made in about 20 different countries I find that a very, very weak argument.

It's funny to see a business owner like yourself (as your quote would imply) spending so much time arguing on the internet

I'm not a business owner, but thanks for trying to derail the argument anyway. Now, since I'm not a complete idiot I suggest we get back on track.

So if it is OK for uneducated people in the private sector to make more than $17/hour, why then is it such a problem in the public sector?

Because people in the private sector were given that money because others wanted to give it. people in the public sector get that money because it was snatched away from other people violently or under the threat of violence.

Again, if the LCBO employees are justified, then so are car thieves.

Under theat of violence ???? I'll have to pay attention for the man with the gun at the next LCBO that I visit... thanks for the tip.

What a stupid point. I'll answer it anyway, perhaps foolishly. I tell you what, next time your tax return comes around refuse to file it. Then you'll find out where the end of that long chain leading to the LCBO employee lies. Send me a postcard from jail (the maximum penalty is five years in the slammer).

Are you sure that some of the money you earn is subsidized.... For example, your company doesnt have to pay for health insurance do they? They dont get electricity on an infrastructure that was paid for by tax dollars ?

Ah, so since the Government stole money from me and used it to give me services I never asked for, that's justified? I tell you what - I'll steal your car, sell it, keep 10% for myself and with the remaining money I'll paint your house purple. That would be perfectly OK, I expect.

I'll concede... a tiny house and a small second-hand car perhaps... (imagine begrudging that)... By the way Hugo, what is "it"... your paycheque ??

Yes. The reason the poor in Canada are poor is because the State gouges about half of their income.

You assume that for the taxes you pay, that you get nothing.... I beg to differ

Oh, I do get something. I get something I never asked for provided in a grossly inefficient way in flagrant disregard for economic law and consumer demand. Whoop-de-do.

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.

Define a necessary good or service. Two hundred years ago, healthcare wasn't necessary. A hundred years ago, electricity wasn't necessary. Fifty years ago, telephones weren't necessary. Now, we have Sheila Copps trying to tell us that broadband internet is a necessary service.

So, what is essential, and why? Why are you correct, and not another lefty who thinks that automobiles are essential? Where does the government intervention stop?

I'll tell you where. It stops at a completely planned economy. No State that believes in these sorts of things ever relinquishes power. As long as people with this mindset are in the State it will gradually gather more and more of the economy unto itself until we are living in the USSR, with no food, clothes or shoes, no cars, no power or water most of the time, and so on.

[cybercoma]

Isn't it ironic how those who are fortunate enough to be comfortably employed without benefit of unions will spend so much time vilifying unions? Would they not be well advised to ask their parents who went through the Depression and the struggles of the 40's and 50's when unions won the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to?

Did we have the same labour laws back then protecting employees? Unions have lived past their usefulness. I have plenty of family in union jobs and I've worked it myself, so your broadbrushed statement is simply wrong.

It is possibly a little much to expect them to go further back into history when unions brought their slightly further back ancestors out of just the Third World misery they think should be the lot of workers in those industries where unions still protect the employees from the reaction to unions that is the neoliberal drive.

Once again, we're comparing apples to oranges. The labour laws weren't the same and they were necessary, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction where the employers are beginning to need protection from unionist greed that is causing them to go bankrupt.

Why would the privatization of the LCBO (or any other) lead to market wages - whatever that silly expression really means? The employees now are at an appropriate level since everything they have is negotiated and freely agreed. The auto industry, and many others, are now in some trouble, not because wages are too high but because Capital has embraced the misnamed "Globalism" in finding sources where workers have not yet won decent conditions and pay.

These industries are not analogous to the LCBO since they are dependent on the import of goods made by cheap labour - and some on secondary cheap, non-unionized, labour in Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The appropriate level for wages is not 40% higher than what everyone else in the food/grocery retail industry makes. I'm sorry, but I don't see where you're coming from. Once again, unions have negotiated a corporation beyond its means. It just so happens that this corporation has a practicially limitless supply of funds. All they have to do is raise taxes to cover it.

That "cheap, non-unionized" labour the autoindustry depends on for dies, parts and moulds is not forced on anyone. For the hundredth time in this thread, no one MUST work for a particular employer. If they can't retain quality employees because their wages are too shitty, then their business will fail.

On the other hand, if any monkey is qualified enough to press a stamp and pull a part out of a machine and just about anyone is willing to do that work, the value of that job will fall and so do the wages.

Labour works on the basics of supply and demand as well. That's what "market wages" is about.

[cybercoma]

I suggest that their salary reflect the fair market value for those jobs.  If there aren't enough qualified people willing to do the job for minimum wage, then that's not what they'll make.  Arbitrarily making up wages because everyone should live comfortably is a recipe for disaster for all the reasons that have already been said (and subsequently igored by you) in this thread.

"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...

To quote YOU from a few weeks back... "Why should someone get paid $18/hour for pushing a broom at an automotive plant"... Should he get minimum wage ??? Extending this, how much should a guy make who just has to tighten bolts all day... doesn't take much of a brain, so why should he make more than minimum wage ??

"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.

What would you do if your employer told you tomorrow he was going to drop your wages to minimum wage? You'd go look for another job, along with every other person who is employed with you. If no one wants to do the job for minimum wage, or if they can't get the properly skilled people for that job at that price, they have to offer more money.

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 and too bad you seem incapable of understanding something I've repeated several times already.

Show me one worker who will attest to the unions keeping morale up and I'll show you two that absolutely despise the unions for protecting worthless employees that make their jobs more difficult.

Maybe the union itself doesn't keep morale up... but a healthy paycheque, excellent benefits, and good holiday time probably help keep morale up... especially when you compare it to non-union jobs....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Damn right a healthy paycheck and excellent benefits keep morale up. That's why people try to find jobs that offer those things by getting the skills they need to be paid accordingly.

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.

The less people that can do your job, the more money you'll make. It's just like anything you purchase. Limited edition items and rare collectibles are worth more than trinkets that are sold on every corner of the planet.

The employer creates morale in the way they treat their employees and how much money and benefits they offer them for their skills.

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

[cybercoma]

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.

I mean, it's the same as your idea of labour. Instead of allowing people the conscious choice of entering into a contract, you want everything to mandated by unions and government. There's nothing to be said for 30,000,000 regulating salaries and prices of products by their decisions.