Janitorial Protesters in Houston

[RedScare]

a bunch of damned profit maximizers looking to exploit the working poor.

Funny that you use that terminology.

I've tired of your rambling. What is your point, other than you do not like unions? I like them...for precisely the reason that you do not...that, like an army, a worker can achieve with a group that which cannot be achieved individually. I do not have to explain why I like it (though it should be obvious), nor must I admit or care if non-living corporations must part with some profit because of it.

Millionaires and corporations have the tools to negotiate on their own, or hire negotiators on their behalf. Minimum wage workers do not. The union provides that for them. I'm rooting for the underdogs. Get over it. Better yet, go to FreeRepublic where you can get a sympathetic ear. Because, I am not sympathetic to corporations over minimum wage workers.

[TheNiche]

Millionaires and corporations have the tools to negotiate on their own, or hire negotiators on their behalf. Minimum wage workers do not. The union provides that for them.

And who pays for the union!? You don't think that its the owners of the firm, do you?

[westguy]

Interesting, I didn't see that anywhere. I don't think that Toyota is using Chinese in their plant in San Antonio.

San Antonio moved to Japan??

[KinkaidAlum]

Midtown Coog has got it right on this one!

A company is NOTHING without its employees and that includes the folks who clean up at the end of the day.

Now, for all of you "maximize profit" people, why don't you demand that the CEOs/CFOs clean the toilets and mop the floors? According to you, it's an easy job that anyone can do and it would certainly save the investors some money!

[TJones]

San Antonio moved to Japan??

We are talking about the company in general, not just the Japanese operations.

And who pays for the union!? You don't think that its the owners of the firm, do you?

Well, to be fair, the distinguished Union Reps. get paid on BOTH sides of the table. It's a nice racket.

[TheNiche]

Now, for all of you "maximize profit" people, why don't you demand that the CEOs/CFOs clean the toilets and mop the floors? According to you, it's an easy job that anyone can do and it would certainly save the investors some money!

Because their time has a higher and better use.

[Montrose1100]

that, like an army, a worker can achieve with a group that which cannot be achieved individually.

You both (by both I mean you and & niche) are right & wrong at the same time. If you don't mind me doing so, here is how I see the argument being played.

Like an army, a worker can achieve with a group that which cannot be achieved individually.

Like an artist, a worker can achieve by being individual that which cannot be achieved in a group.

Just a circle, going around and around.

[sevfiv]

Just a circle, going around and around.

indeed. and the circle keeps passing by the same point - fair wages and benefits

[TheNiche]

indeed. and the circle keeps passing by the same point - fair wages and benefits

As a sociopolitical observation, I can very easily see the logic to Montrose's assertion. Unfortunately, the validity of the observation does little to resolve the conflict.

And I can agree that it appears to revolve around the same point, "fair wages and benefits," as suggested by sevfiv, but only if there is a question mark behind the phrase. The fundamental issue here is that what is "fair" is inherently subjective, viewed through a normative lens by those involved in political discourse. On the one hand, there are folks like Red that believe (in one form or another) that it is morally justified to force individuals to contribute to charity. On the other hand, there are people like myself that believe that charity is merely theft unless it is sanctioned by the individual.

------------

On a different note, there was an article in the Saturday Chronicle about the effects of the strike. Although my confidence in Chronicle reporters' ability to accurately reflect the majority sentiment is not particularly high, it left the strong impression in my mind that the work done by janitorial staffs aren't of great value to many people (i.e. highly elastic demand for janitorial services, meaning that higher wages will result in sharp reduction in janitorial staffs), and moreover, that the strike isn't being very effective at crippling office building operations. Strikes only have influence when at least one of two conditions are met: 1) public outrage against a publicly-traded firm, which won't be drummed up with articles like yesterday's, or 2) operational failure, which will only very rarely result within the context of unskilled labor.

[musicman]

From today's chronicle there's an article about immigrants' wages dropping as more immigrants filter into New Orleans.

article

like i mentioned earlier, because we have so many here, wages tend to be lower as well..

Edited October 29, 2006 by musicman

[Guest danax]

From today's chronicle there's an article about immigrants' wages dropping as more immigrants filter into New Orleans.

article

like i mentioned earlier, because we have so many here, wages tend to be lower as well..

Immigrants complain that too many of their compatriots have migrated from Houston to New Orleans.

"A lot of people arrived," said Juan Martinez, a Mexican immigrant who relocated to New Orleans from Memphis in March.

"The Texans lowered the prices," he added

So we got NO's murderers and they got our illegals. Mother Nature is a delicate flower! (oh lighten up, people )

The union's tactics of trying to force employers to pay more than what's openly available in the form of other illegals willing to work for less is futile; the demand for cheap labor will always exist and the supply for the same currently seems endless. Maybe Mr. Martinez above is ready for a wall now.

[ricco67]

And I can agree that it appears to revolve around the same point, "fair wages and benefits," as suggested by sevfiv, but only if there is a question mark behind the phrase. The fundamental issue here is that what is "fair" is inherently subjective, viewed through a normative lens by those involved in political discourse. On the one hand, there are folks like Red that believe (in one form or another) that it is morally justified to force individuals to contribute to charity. On the other hand, there are people like myself that believe that charity is merely theft unless it is sanctioned by the individual.

I've been in buildings late at night while they were out and about working and believe me, they work insanely fast for the work that they do. I can imagine them being exhausted by the end of their Four Hour Shift since there is quite a bit of pressure to do a proper job (they have supervisors that randomly go behind them and make sure everything is kosher as I later found out) or else they're automatically out the door.

As far as wages goes, whether or not wages seem "fair" they should at least be rewarded with "raises" for the longevity on their jobs. I'm sure there are quite a few people that get quite irate when their evalutations/raises aren't done in a timely fashion. Benifits would also help out a great deal. Think about it, the ones that DO get sick often crowd into our emergency rooms and create a larger headache for people in that profession.

The costs of running a building is just another cost of doing business. You want quality care/building then you need to provide a quality service. If you're not willing to do that, then it's the one on the lower end of the economic food chain that will invariably suffer for the "poor" working conditions they are subjected to.

[nmainguy]

So is this about immigrants going to New Orleans to work while Katrina evacuees sit back here in Houston jobless or is about a fair wage for everyone or what?

I mean if it's just a rant to rag on immigrants who are re-building a city while some of that city's residents sit here in Houston, just say so. If employees need legal labor to clean buildings, it seems there are alot of unemployeed legal evacuees right here in Houston who could do the job. Why the employees don't seek them out and why the un-employed don't seek out the jobs...who knows? Maybe it's just best to blame it on those mean old unions and hard working illegals and skip along our merry blind way.

[TheNiche]

I've been in buildings late at night while they were out and about working and believe me, they work insanely fast for the work that they do. I can imagine them being exhausted by the end of their Four Hour Shift since there is quite a bit of pressure to do a proper job (they have supervisors that randomly go behind them and make sure everything is kosher as I later found out) or else they're automatically out the door.

As far as wages goes, whether or not wages seem "fair" they should at least be rewarded with "raises" for the longevity on their jobs. I'm sure there are quite a few people that get quite irate when their evalutations/raises aren't done in a timely fashion. Benifits would also help out a great deal. Think about it, the ones that DO get sick often crowd into our emergency rooms and create a larger headache for people in that profession.

The costs of running a building is just another cost of doing business. You want quality care/building then you need to provide a quality service. If you're not willing to do that, then it's the one on the lower end of the economic food chain that will invariably suffer for the "poor" working conditions they are subjected to.

There are a couple of interesting topics that you've just opened the doors to.

First, let us assume that we as a voting society resolve that indeed janitors' wages are too low. What is the best way to resolve this? Unions? HELL NO. Unions are incredibly wasteful as a way to redistribute wealth, as they create asymmetrical impacts with immense long-term negative repercussions to financial markets. They also open up numerous opportunities for corruption, economic disruptions during strikes, and they carry a lot of frictional costs. Wouldn't it be easier for the government to just use money from the general fund? I mean, if the general public is voting to extend some form of economic favoritism to a particular class of people, shouldn't the general public pay for it? It'd be just another tax, among many others.

Secondly, you bring up the matter of health insurance. Do bear in mind that there are only so many doctors and yet there is an incredible demand for health services of all types. Not all health services can be performed...it just isn't possible. When the government incentivizes or subsidizes health insurance policies, it makes it easier (less expensive) for the individual to demand any given procedure. When aggregate demand for healthcare goes up and supply is fixed, prices rise. So what happens to the cost of health insurance? It goes up. So what do companies do? They stop providing it or provide less of it, even to white collar employees (like myself, for instance, as is actually the case)...the government doesn't stop providing healthcare to the least productive members of society (poor and old); it just pays out the ass. How is that "fair" to those of us who have invested in college educations?

[Montrose1100]

Unfortunately, the validity of the observation does little to resolve the conflict.

I tried.

[ricco67]

There are a couple of interesting topics that you've just opened the doors to.

First, let us assume that we as a voting society resolve that indeed janitors' wages are too low. What is the best way to resolve this? Unions? HELL NO. Unions are incredibly wasteful as a way to redistribute wealth, as they create asymmetrical impacts with immense long-term negative repercussions to financial markets. They also open up numerous opportunities for corruption, economic disruptions during strikes, and they carry a lot of frictional costs. Wouldn't it be easier for the government to just use money from the general fund? I mean, if the general public is voting to extend some form of economic favoritism to a particular class of people, shouldn't the general public pay for it? It'd be just another tax, among many others.

Secondly, you bring up the matter of health insurance. Do bear in mind that there are only so many doctors and yet there is an incredible demand for health services of all types. Not all health services can be performed...it just isn't possible. When the government incentivizes or subsidizes health insurance policies, it makes it easier (less expensive) for the individual to demand any given procedure. When aggregate demand for healthcare goes up and supply is fixed, prices rise. So what happens to the cost of health insurance? It goes up. So what do companies do? They stop providing it or provide less of it, even to white collar employees (like myself, for instance, as is actually the case)...the government doesn't stop providing healthcare to the least productive members of society (poor and old); it just pays out the ass. How is that "fair" to those of us who have invested in college educations?

While granted, I'm not overly fond of unions themselves, but they do have a tendency to make sure the workers are at least treated properly with a decent wage. The Union dues from what I've seen in the past can be considered almost criminal in how they take them, but even after the dues, they seem to have more then what the typical wage earner would be.

As far as the government using the money from it's "general fund" I would have to totally disagree as that would be taking out of the taxes that I make, and they are NOT federal workers. So I don't buy that logic one bit.

As far as health care goes, I have to give you a point on that, I'm SELF EMPLOYED and do not have health care myself. While I do pay my doctor in CASH (which he almost kisses me for), not everyone has that ability. If something catastrophic happens to me, I'm in the poor house (broken leg for example). Yet, I'm not able to afford the $400-800 a month for health insurance because I have other needs.

So you're saying that I'm not entitled to health care at all? Life isn't all about you, it's about the general well being.

If those who earns a modest living and can be provided with SOME form of health care, then the great majority of our health crises (and idiots suing doctors for the sake of suing) would be mostly resolved.

Back on topic: So you're against any LEGAL citizen being able to be rewarded with a decent wage, even if they're an unskilled worker? While that's very capitalistic of you, then by all means at least PRETEND to have some compassion for those that aren't on the same economic level as you are. Especially those that prefer to be amoung the working poor as opposed to just sitting around collecting welfare.

Or is that what you would prefer the janitors be doing? Working AND collecting welfare?

Edited October 30, 2006 by ricco67

[musicman]

cant we all just be friends?

[TheNiche]

As far as the government using the money from it's "general fund" I would have to totally disagree as that would be taking out of the taxes that I make, and they are NOT federal workers. So I don't buy that logic one bit.

Well, if you feel that the market isn't providing a 'fair' wage, and we can acknowledge that unions are wasteful, don't you think that the government might be able to more efficiently administer the difference between 'market' and 'fair' wages for those occupations that society deems deserving? Also, if SOCIETY judges that janitors need to be paid more, then how is it somebody else's job to pay for it? Surely, there will be disparate impacts, after all. What's 'fair' about that?

Moreover, and I think I've discussed this on HAIF before, consider how people's labor is used to create goods and services and about those that buy them. The upper class tends to consume products that are created disproportionately by the middle and upper classes. The middle class tends to consume products that are created disproportionately by the lower and middle classes. The lower classes are most reliant upon other lower-class labor. So when society decides that the 'fair' wage should be a bit higher, who pays the most as a percentage of their incomes for the costs that will have been passed on to the consumers? The poor and middle class!

Add on to that that when labor costs rise, firms with an elastic demand for labor will cut back on employment, leaving some poor people completely out of a job. Now, if we'd just taken from the general fund, allowing the market to remain in equilibreum, then there won't be job losses, the burden is placed on different households in a consistent progressive manner, as demanded by the voting public for most all other policies, and we've avoided the nasty frictional costs associated with unions.

I personally don't favor this approach as a political solution because in addition to the moral dilemma there are still some undesirable impacts on the supply side of the labor market with respect to the size of the labor force and disincentives to educational attainment, but I'm definitely of the mindset that if we're going to make a suboptimal decision, then lets at least do the wrong thing in the least destructive way.

So you're saying that I'm not entitled to health care at all? Life isn't all about you, it's about the general well being.

If those who earns a modest living and can be provided with SOME form of health care, then the great majority of our health crises (and idiots suing doctors for the sake of suing) would be mostly resolved.

No, you aren't entitled to much at all. In fact, the only things that I believe are entitled to anyone are those rights outlined in the constitution that the government has resolved not to take from you. But with few exceptions, what you get out of life should be a function of what you put into it.

There are exceptions, for instance, disease control in public schools through vaccinations. That's in pretty much everybody's best interests. To some extent, the availability of preventative healthcare can result in a net benefit to society. Medical care is an incredibly complicated and messy issue, but it is important to remember that we only have so many doctors in our society, and they can only see so many people. There's got to be a way to ration our finite healthcare capacity to those who 1) need it the most and 2) are the most productive in society. Makes for a tough set of questions.

I can tell you this much: Canadian healthcare sucks.

Back on topic: So you're against any LEGAL citizen being able to be rewarded with a decent wage, even if they're an unskilled worker? While that's very capitalistic of you, then by all means at least PRETEND to have some compassion for those that aren't on the same economic level as you are. Especially those that prefer to be amoung the working poor as opposed to just sitting around collecting welfare.

Or is that what you would prefer the janitors be doing? Working AND collecting welfare?

I'd question what constitutes 'decent'. To me, anything above subsistence is decent insofar as sociopolitical unrest can be averted or contained. As long as educational opportunities have been made available to all citizens, that's really my only concern. Beyond that, it is up to them. That is my policy stance.

My personal stance, on the other hand, is that if you and others really care about the working poor, then you're all free to organize and contribute to nonprofit charities whose mission is to redistribute wealth to the working poor. If you really want to give to them, then that's your perrogative...I just really don't like the idea that you would be willing to force your value system upon others. In my mind, that's the antithesis of charity.