How do You Negotiate for Higher Wages with Over 10% Unemployment?

[last1standing]

And that's just "officially". In real terms unemployment may be 15% or higher when including those who have given up the search, gone back to school or taken part-time jobs. In my state, Michigan, that official rate is nearly 15% and in the city of Detroit its 25%.

Then there's the fact that NAFTA has created that massive sucking sound Ross Perot mentioned 18 years ago and nearly every industry in the US is aching for an excuse to break Union contracts in order to send more jobs to India and China.

So when we have the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression and NAFTA sending even more jobs overseas, how do these politicians expect the Unions to negotiate for higher wages?

[sandnsea]

1. Unemployment was 10.8% in 1981

People managed to negotiate for raises. The money that went to profits two years ago, now goes to labor like it should have all along. That's all.

People really need to get a freaking grip. And if they reduce the cost of health insurance premiums, there will be money for wages.

[last1standing]

2. I think you're wrong on every part of that post.

Can you back up your statement that people managed to negotiate for raises and can you provide REAL unemployment numbers in context with the new rating scheme that bush* changed to?

[sandnsea]

7. I got raises in the 1981

There's more facts than you provided. Google up the unemployment rates for the last 50 years. They aren't hard to find. Things were shitty in the 80s, they're shitty now, they'll be shitty again. It doesn't mean everybody is in a panic and will never get a raise. A good number of raises come in the form of contracts and are automatic these days anyway. And people are just as stuck to jobs due to health insurance as they are fear of wage loss. The obsessive desire to crawl into the pity pot around here is sick.

[last1standing]

8. So you got yours. Great!

I'm really not going to spend time arguing with you since I know exactly what it'll degenerate into. If you can't provide backup for your claims past the statement that you got yours so fuck everyone else, we're done.

[dionysus]

43. that is totally NOT what she said. you should know better.

:puke:

[DailyGrind51]

17. Interest rates were also much higher in the '80s, providing non-sales revenue.

[jeanpalmer]

10. People got "pay raises"

in 1981 because inflation was running at 10%+. Many union wages were indexed to inflation, but even wages that were not indexed increased. But in real terms, wages just kept pace with inflation. So while one can say people got wage increases, they really didn't. Anyone whose wage didn't go up during the early 80's took a significant pay cut in real terms.

The situation today is totally different. Inflation is near zero. Undoubtedly some people are getting wage increases, but it can't be the norm because wages in real terms have been stagnant to declining for a number of years. Even SS recipients for the first time will not get a wage increase (cost of living adjustment) this year because there was no inflation last year. And then there are the people who don't have a wage to increase or decrease because they are unemployed.

[last1standing]

11. Don't forget the government no longer includes things like gasoline in their indexes.

So, like the unemployment rate, the real number for inflation is higher than the government admits.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Also, mythical "higher wages" are being touted as the basis for taxing good healthcare plans.

The spin goes: taxes on the plans will cause corporations to scale back on coverage on plans, BUT, they'll magically change their evil ways and give employees (in a time of 15%+ real un- and under- employment) HIGHER WAGES.

And I gotta bridge to sell ya.

[TheKentuckian]

3. There will be money for wages but they won't be paid.

Last year at my old job we had our biggest month in 15 years. That same month a 30% across the board paycut was put into effect for non-management employees.

This ain't 1981, its a whole generation of Reagonomics later. Get fucking real, dog shit ain't sunshine. What lever do we possibly have to negotiate shit? Tell us how it will play out, or are you relying off your econ 101 that hinged mightily on failed economic principles and a couple of wonks that haven't thought a moment of being in the shoes on the ground in the system?

You best get that in writing rather than relying on bullshit principles from another era. Where in the bill are employers required to up wages as insurance costs go down?

[sandnsea]

6. It's not going to stay this way forever

Biggest month in 15 years and a 30% paycut. There you go. Profits don't always equate to pay raises. And an increase in taxes won't necessarily equate to a pay cut. There's more to business than that.

[TheKentuckian]

44. You are trying to use my example of the corporate culture to make lemonaid here?

Don't bogart that joint, my friend. Puff, puff, pass.

[azurnoir]

4. Ah yeah that went real well for PATCO in 1981

On August 3, 1981 the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In doing so, the union violated a law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned strikes by government unions. However, several government unions (including one representing employees of the Postal Service) had declared strikes in the intervening period without penalties. Ronald Reagan, however, declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.<4> Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.<4>

On August 5, following the PATCO workers refusal to return to work Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order,<6><7> and banned them from federal service for life (this ban was later rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993).<8> In the wake of the strike and mass firings the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as at the time it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller.<2> They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal.<2> PATCO was decertified on October 22, 1981.<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_%281968%29#August_1981_strike

[sandnsea]

5. Oh good lord, yes there were problems in 1981

There are always problems. It doesn't mean nothing ever gets better for some. People around here who have ten times more than I ever did are crying like somebody took their last cookie.

[cabluedem]

9. You dont have a clue do you? Its not 1981 toto.

[azurnoir]

23. Reagun's busting of PATCO was in many ways the

death knell of unions and bargaining, it was so to speak the beginning of the end, IMO the GOP's and later Blue Dog's aim was to return this country to a modernized version of a "robber baron" economy and that is what has happened in a very real sense
Nowadays perhaps a precious few individuals in a very few specialized fields can bargain for a higher wage but by and large the common working man is screwed

[sandnsea]

24. Thank you for the history lesson

As if I didn't know even though I was living it at the time. And yet, people still managed to get raises in 1981 despite the direct assault on labor. There are $100,000 a year jobs available in my town right now, in every town. And some people, with unions, getting raises. Shocking I know! The job market isn't the same for everybody and never will be. Taking massive amounts of people's wages for private insurance is what you're supposedly fighting against.. until you're told not to. Now who does that sound like? These insurance plans do not need to cost this much and taxing them will drive the prices down. Which will benefit the workers. The unions are being bamboozled.

[azurnoir]

28. Oh there are still $100k jobs out there

thanks for that but unfortunately for most of us the median income is around $55k a year, so yes there are executive level jobs out there but for rest of us?

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

[Sherman A1]

45. Agreed & Well Said

:toast:

[Hawaii Hiker]

36. One good thing about 1981 was that CD"s were paying around 13%

what do they pay now, about 1.46% or so....

[girl gone mad]

13. for 2 months, if that.

Things are worse now.





There is nothing in the bill that will reduce premiums.

Profit and labor are not fungible as you imply in your post. In our quasi-capitalist system, if a business can't turn a profit, it ceases to exist and no longer employs labor.

[DCBob]

12. I think you should just be happy you have a job at this point..

We probably will never fully get back to where we were prior to the economic collapse. That's because those numbers were based on a bogus economy boosted for the most part by a vastly over-inflated real estate market. I think we have to face the reality of lower income and a lower standard of living in the near term at least until some other economic "bubble" develops -- perhaps green tech business.

[90-percent]

14. related thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x74494


-90% Jimmy

[Ghost Dog]

15. Through solidarity, strikes, general strikes,

and blood in the streets

and in the homes of the unjustifiably, exploitative, sinful rich.

[QC]

16. You just do, OK? Now stop asking so many impertinent questions!

I just don't understand you people. You got to see the president eating a cheeseburger. Isn't that enough?

[jschurchin]

18. It's not hard.

It all depends on the industry you are in. The company I work for had a horrible 2009. Net income was only $727 million thru the 3rd quarter.
I really don't know how we survived.:sarcasm:

You see, our contract is up on June 30th, and the company is gonna plead poverty because we didn't make as much this year as last. However, if $1 billion net income is poverty, then our nation is truly fucked. We are gonna make a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in this type of economy, and our company is gonna tell us it isn't ENOUGH, they want more.

So you see, it isn't hard to ask for a raise. We made a billion dollars, and we just want a small portion of the billion we made. Will we get it? Doubtful, but we will ask, because we earned it.

[dmallind]

19. BY demonstrating where you add value in excess of your current pay/costs

Same as always. By being more valuable than the normal worker they could pluck from that unemployment pool, which includes coming up with ways to improve processes, lower costs, and reduce errors (all of which have the side benefit of making your own job better too). If work to you is something you turn up for, perform about as expected, and then leave, what wage increase do you merit? From what extra revenue or lower costs that you created should that money come?

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Paging HughBeaumont!

We got a live one here.

[dmallind]

31. And your alternative suggestion is....

Show up at 6 leave at 2 and expect 5% a year eh?

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Right, you're supposed to show up at 6 am and leave at 2 am on a regular basis.

Get glowing performance reviews and still get laid off like I did.

[dmallind]

37. Hey I did everything I listed and got laid off too - but I can still get raises doing it. NT

[ProSense]

21. So this is your argument against taxing overpriced crappy health plans:

Unions currently have no leverage because of high unemployment?

[Hello_Kitty]

27. It's the argument against the tax leading to higher wages

An argument that, I believe, you have been making.

[last1standing]

29. We've already seen that you're anti-Union so of course you're going to work against them.

But if you can't even understand the basics of negotiations then there's nothing I can do to educate you on them.

[AngryAmish]

22. My boss is an asshole and I see him naked in the shower every day

Never have a job, people. Only work for yourself.

[quiller4]

25. Regional unemployment rates are a much bigger factor in labor negotiations

unless you are taking about national agreements like that governing United Parcel.

A year ago with mills closing IAM Woodworkers W157 would have had a difficult time avoiding take-aways to save jobs. Now with two mills recently re-opened and two others adding shifts, the environment has changed.

2009 would have been a horrible year to negotiate contracts in retail stores but with sales up by double digits in Washington's Macy's Stores and Safeway and Fred Meyer doing well, this shouldn't be a bad year for the UFCW going to the table in Western Washington. The same cannot be said about California where same store sales are still declining and Walmart's expansion has really hurt the union-represented grocery chains.

[last1standing]

33. What's the unemployment rate in Western Washington?

I think that number might have a little bit to do with the UFCW's ability to negotiate higher pay for reduced benefits.

[johnaries]

30. That's why we have to bring unemployment down first. Hence,

the jobs initiatives and the stimulus packages.

Some have accused Obama of "trickle-down" economics because of TARP. No, that was just to staunch the bleeding. He is against NAFTA, but he can't go against it now because of the destablization it would cause.

He has to be very careful right now to begin new inititives that will help create the new economy without destablizing the beginnings of the recovery we are just now starting to see. That is a very difficult balancing act.

[harkadog]

34. NAFTA is what is causing destablization.

Obama has given no indication he is against it.

[mstinamotorcity]

35. I really don't know

how some of them are going to do it.But my union did get us a small raise and a couple of extra little perks.We didn't gripe too much because we like having a paycheck.I am on a medical now but will be glad to return to work.

[JamesA1102]

38. NAFTA has nothing to do with India and China.

NAFTA is an agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Jobs moving to India and China has nothing to do with NAFTA.

[last1standing]

39. I'm not claiming I was sober when I typed this OP.

But the sentiment is still there. LOL!

[JamesA1102]

40. Thanks for your honesty!!! :-) nt

[last1standing]

41. Hell! I'm just amazed you were the first one to catch it.

It was a pretty basic mistake and I noticed it when I reread it after the editing time was up. My excuse was drinking, I wonder why others didn't see it. :shrug:

[hayu_lol]

42. Time to bring back the strong labor unions...

throughout the economy.

CEO's appear not to have problems negotiating or renegotiating their contracts...even into the 8 figure areas.

Time to bring Executive salaries/perks/deferred payments and the like to not more than 40 times the lowest wage paid in the company. CEO runs his/her company into the red or bankruptcy and then walks away with 20-30 million as a goodbye present.