# Boeing NLRB Versus Boeing

#### turbo

Gold Member
The difference however is that much of that stuff as far as corporations are concerned has been outlawed. Corporations cannot "buy" a politician, but the unions can to a degree. Corporations cannot create legalized monopolies, but the unions can.
The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.

#### turbo

Gold Member
The unions like the minimum wage becuase it prices cheaper labor out of the market and protects the union jobs.
If you have never been a union official, you might not have much perspective on this. As a union officer, I threw my support strongly behind increasing minimum wages, out of enlightened self-interest, as did the rest of the leadership. If you can keep base-wages livable, then poor families don't have to rely on help from social services, including fuel subsidies, food stamps, health-care subsidies, etc. All of those costs are a burden on other workers that big corporations want to foist off onto average taxpayers. Union workers support livable wages because it's the right thing to do.

The right-wing idea that our society is a zero-sum game in which you can enrich yourself by impoverishing the poor is not logical. Most people can see that if the people who are in the lower-paid classes (and spend most of their pay every week) are comfortable enough to buy goods and services, then the economy as a whole will strengthen, and we will all benefit. Trickle-down is voodoo economics. Trickle-up is a driving force that can pull us out of recession.

#### russ_watters

Mentor
The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.
Turbo-1, for the most part, we only have negative laws in the US. Those things have not been codified, they just haven't been outlawed. And why would they be? You seem to be against corporations having any kind of power at all, even normal economic power.

If you think you can prove they have been codified, please provide evidence.

#### WhoWee

The nasty behaviors of large corporations have not been outlawed, they have been codified. If your bottom-tier workers are part-time, you don't have to give them any benefits, and you don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes on them. Plus, you can fire them for any reason at any time. That is a huge amount of leverage on a low-paid worker who may be trying to actually raise a family on poverty wages.
Would this be better for the US workforce?

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2010/10/friday-shoutouts-ohyeahs-and-awesome-accomplishmen.html [Broken]

Last edited:

#### CAC1001

If you have never been a union official, you might not have much perspective on this. As a union officer, I threw my support strongly behind increasing minimum wages, out of enlightened self-interest, as did the rest of the leadership. If you can keep base-wages livable, then poor families don't have to rely on help from social services, including fuel subsidies, food stamps, health-care subsidies, etc. All of those costs are a burden on other workers that big corporations want to foist off onto average taxpayers. Union workers support livable wages because it's the right thing to do.
No it isn't, because you are artificially increasing the price of labor to businesses. If you artificially increase the price of something, you are going to create a surplus of it. By the way, Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage. They claim they do because they "care," but I think the real motive is that they know that it would harm their smaller business competitors (it's easy for a monster company like Wal-Mart to absorb a higher minimum wage, not so easy for your local mom-and-pop).

In addition, what do you mean about "costs that big corporations want to foist onto average taxpayers?" Where is it a corporation's responsibility to provide all that stuff? The job of a company is to make money for the shareholders. It has a responsibility to provide safe working conditions, sure, but otherwise, what it pays people is based on how the market prices their services. In addition to this, how does one define a "livable wage" anyhow?

The right-wing idea that our society is a zero-sum game in which you can enrich yourself by impoverishing the poor is not logical.
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but that is a left-wing socialist idea, not at all any right-wing idea. The right understands that the pie is not fixed, and that you create wealth, that you grow the pie.

Most people can see that if the people who are in the lower-paid classes (and spend most of their pay every week) are comfortable enough to buy goods and services, then the economy as a whole will strengthen, and we will all benefit.
We don't have classes in America, we have income brackets. And what you are ignoring is that if you raise the price on something artificially, something else has to give. If you force companies to pay workers more, this hits the dividends for the shareholders, the benefits the company can offer the employees, the employees themselves in that they may have to fire people, and the customers, who have to make due with higher prices. Thus what really happens is one group benefits at the expense of the rest of society.

Trickle-down is voodoo economics. Trickle-up is a driving force that can pull us out of recession.
There is no such thing as trickle-down economics. As pointed out before, the idea of supply-side economics is to increase investment, business growth, and job creation, and yes it can work if the taxes on businesses and investment are punitively high. The immediate beneficiaries of such tax cuts are the employees. If a company hires more workers with the intention to grow the business larger, the employees get paid regardless of whether the business ends up making more money.

Never heard of trickle-up either. IMO, usually the politicians emphasizing "trickle-up" want to do it by first stealing from one group to give to another.

Last edited by a moderator:

Wow!

#### WhoWee

Sounds like the Great Lakes Region - typical in my experience - again IMO.

#### Char. Limit

Gold Member
I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.

#### WhoWee

I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.
I'm going to go out on a limb with this Char - you said "store" - I'll assume there is interaction with the public? IMO - that makes a difference.

#### Char. Limit

Gold Member
I'm going to go out on a limb with this Char - you said "store" - I'll assume there is interaction with the public? IMO - that makes a difference.
Yup. I basically spend every working hour in the public eye. As do most of the grocery workers... hell, my brother recently got promoted to assistant store director.

#### Evo

Mentor
I belong to a union. I do my best to get as much done as possible, as does everyone else in my store. So I don't see where you're coming from that "union workers strive to make the most for doing the least", at least not in all situations.

Or maybe we're just that awesome up here.
There are people that are in unions that don't have the union mentality. Sounds like you don't have a group that wants to get paid for doing nothing. It's possible, but when you work in some industries that have unions like the CWA, it's a lost cause.

#### WhoWee

Yup. I basically spend every working hour in the public eye. As do most of the grocery workers... hell, my brother recently got promoted to assistant store director.
That's what I figured. A manufacturing environment is a little different. You have management people (them) and workers (us) and Union Reps and Safety Officers and QA Inspectors - coupled with very little outside influence. Next, add to that mix an assembly line, perhaps loud noises, lot's of rules and boredom - then a grievance. It's a formula for disaster - again IMO.

#### Al68

The right-wing idea that our society is a zero-sum game in which you can enrich yourself by impoverishing the poor is not logical.
Can you name and source a right-winger with such a position? That's a rhetorical question, I know that you will not. But please feel free to continue as if such absurd nonsense were substantiated fact.
Trickle-down is voodoo economics.
The most fraudulent economic strawman ever invented by the left, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum. But please feel free to argue against the nonsensical strawman, instead of the opposing positions actually presented.

Whether you realize it or not, your repeated failure to offer any legitimate argument against actual right-wing economic positions essentially concedes them to us.

Last edited by a moderator:

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving