|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Minimum wage in america (12/8/2013 9:09:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
But if employers can hire an equally skilled programer who will work for less, why wouldn't companies take that advantage? Same thing happens with illegal aliens coming across the border.
Makes me think that in order to keep people employed in you or my country, steps need to be taken to ensure companies don't ship out to a 3rd world country in order to sell products to a people who are loosing job opportunities due to foreign competition. Keep the economy working at home, not overseas, which only benefits the higher ups, not the workers.
Screw raising minimum wage to $15 an hour. That is just circus peanuts after all. Let's cut to the chase and raise it to $100 an hour. That should fix everything up just fine, right?
Or, on the other hand, we can just lower it to $0 and make everyone work for free. That should work fine as well, right
Actually, that's not what anyone is saying. While getting rid of the minimum wage, is, in essence, reducing it to $0, there is still no forcing anyone to work for that wage. If $7.25/hr. isn't enough for a person to live on, why is that person accepting a job that only pays $7.25/hr.? If a worker can't merit a job that pays better than $7.25/hr., why should business be forced to pay that person more? If a person's labor is worth $50/hr., that person shouldn't accept $7.25/hr. That person might have to settle for less than $50/hr., until that person proves his/her value. On the flip side of that coin, an employer shouldn't have to pay that person $75/hr., if his/her labor is only worth $50/hr.
People work for less because they need the money. Sometimes its settle for 7.50 or starve. But trust me, if some employers could legally pay a dollar a day (or less) they would. There is no reason to allow an employer to take advantage of employees just because they are hungry.
Why doesn't it? I have what you want. Why should I devalue what I have just because you need it? Find it from someone else if you think my prices are too high. Find a better paying job than what I'm offering if you think I'm not offering enough. You have every right to do that. You have to decide, however, between not selling any of your labor and being able to purchase what you want.
quote:
A few years ago I personally worked at a place where they ordered us to work overtime and then refused to pay us for it. (Not just refused to pay us time and a half. They refused to pay us for it period.) And I overheard the asshole supervisor say "We're in a recession, what are they gonna do? Its not like there are any other jobs to go to." I personally called the wage and hour board who contacted the employer and that was the only reason we got our money. (Note: everyone else was too afraid of getting fired to call them.) Without that legal remedy in place my choices would have been to either immediately quit and have no source of income whatsoever or to work 10 extra hours a week for $0. I left that place as soon as I could find something else. (and that took awhile because we WERE in a recession.) So trust me, if employers could legally pay you $0....some of them would. (Historical example? The sharecropping racket. A man worked hard all year long and at the end of the year he owed the employer money.....and it was legal. Completely immoral but legal.)
We do have labor laws that should be enforced. Forcing an hourly worker to work for free is wrong, with or without any mention of how much that person gets paid. If your unit of pay is set on an hourly basis, then you should get paid by that unit. A salaried worker is paid by the week, so that person *could* be paid one set rate for 40 hours in a week or 80. That's up to the contract he or she works under. If your employer asked for volunteers to work for free, you should have had the option of doing so. It should not have been forced, and I would have no issue standing up for you in that situation.
quote:
I know we like to think that businesses will automatically treat their employees fairly and pay them appropriately without legal mandates. Some of them will. History has shown that some of them will not.
No, I don't think every business will automatically do so. The good businesses do because they understand the value of human labor and, thus, value their employees. Where my ex works, they pay 100% of insurance premiums for their workers, and the insurance is very good, too. They will end up paying the "Cadillac Tax" because of how much they are spending. The tax they would have to pay to not offer any insurance at all is less than they pay in premiums for the year (they are self-insured, so that 80/20 split after deductibles is 80% on them, not the insurer (who only takes over once stop-loss limits are hit)). Even once the owners found this out, the "evil Capitalists" they are, decided that the workers were still more important and would continue to pay 100% of the premiums and pay the Cadillac Tax, even though, financially, it will end up costing them more.
There are businesses that don't treat employees well. There are businesses that do. It's up to the employee to decide where he or she wants to work, isn't it? Businesses that treat their employees better will have an easier time finding quality workers, and will be less likely to go out of business, won't they? The bottom line is, if you don't want to work in a job that pays minimum wage, get the skills required for jobs that pay more. If everyone is going for the same job, you have to make yourself more salable than the rest if you want the job. Minimum wage isn't for everyone. Minimum wage isn't for every job. Who are you (who am I, who is anyone here) to decide what a person's labor is worth?
|
|
|
|
