• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chalk one up for the union guys

So my older son works as an installer for AT&T. He just started with the company. Today (yes, Sunday) an installer for DirectTV came by my son's house to install the service. (Son gets the Ultimate package, a DVR, and three receivers for ten bucks a month, thanks to being an AT&T employee. :)) The Direct guy, um, directly asked my son what his hourly wage was. Turns out my freshly-minted union son (Communications Workers of America) makes about $7 per hour more than the DirectTV veteran. (He was really surprised when he found out that bucket truck drivers make $30-plus per hour.) Needless to say, this guy was not pleased. And the sad part is AT&T is not training the DirectTV workers to do the phone and data side of it (U-verse, fiber optic installation, etc.), at least not yet. At this point they're "valued employees" who are sort of like lost-stepchildren. If they're smart they'll join the union.

so 2 different people who do 2 different jobs are not paid the same....and so unions are cool, or something.

I accessed national salary averages for both AT&T and Direct TV installers ( though Glassdoor)... AT&T hourly scale is from $11 to $26 an hour, with the average being $20.33
Direct TV hourly scale is from $12 to $27.. with $20.47 being the average.

i'm finding it very hard to believe a newbie is earning 7 bucks an hour more than a veteran, in light of the 2 salary scales for installers being so closely aligned... very hard indeed.
 
no Moon, you quoted me and then interpreted me and calling me greedy for fighting for rights I'm done with you, it's a personal comment if you want to discuss the topic fine, otherwise I'm done.
Pointing outbtge hypocrisy of posters is always pertinent to the topic, but I understand your desire to scurry off.

Keep fighting the good fight against greed! Well, other people's greed anyways.
 
more than you ever will apparently :dear:

sorry your wages suck

so lets have liberal unions raise wages at the point of a gun until all of our jobs have gone to China!! Good plan!!
 
dear, a million companies "rolled" and went to China because of lower wages.

The thing is the Chinese haven't figured out a way to teleport workers into people's homes and neighborhoods in order to install U-verse and DirectTV. Kudos to them if they ever do. But AT&T is more than happy to hire trained installers from other companies that tend to pay less. These people make grateful, loyal, dedicated workers, and proud members of the Communications Workers of America (like my son).

Walmart saves pennies to preserve profits.

Wal-Mart got a bloody nose with all of the bad press it received last year for being such a miser when it came to the wages it pays its employees. It decided it was better business to give them all a raise (More Than One Million Walmart U.S. Associates Receive Raises as Part of Largest Single-Day Pay Increase in the History of Corporate America). Meanwhile, Costco (which actually put its money where its mouth was voluntarily), continues to kick Sam's Club's ass:

Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE:WMT) has dominated retail for the last two decades, but its warehouse chain Sam's Club has always been something of an ugly stepsister to the parent brand. Though Sam's Club has roughly as many stores as rival Costco Wholesale (NASDAQ:COST), its sales are only about half that of the leading warehouse retail brand.

Sam's Club wants to be more like Costco
 
so 2 different people who do 2 different jobs are not paid the same....and so unions are cool, or something.

I accessed national salary averages for both AT&T and Direct TV installers ( though Glassdoor)... AT&T hourly scale is from $11 to $26 an hour, with the average being $20.33
Direct TV hourly scale is from $12 to $27.. with $20.47 being the average.

i'm finding it very hard to believe a newbie is earning 7 bucks an hour more than a veteran, in light of the 2 salary scales for installers being so closely aligned... very hard indeed.

I find it hard to believe that non-union DirectTV has a wage scale comparable to union AT&T's. So I entered "DirectTV installer" and got an average wage of $10.81/hour. I then entered "U-verse installer" and got an average wage of $19.94/hour. :shrug: Anyway, like I said, this is (right-to-work) Mississippi. Wages on average tend to suck here. I believe the DirectTV guy. He had no reason to lie, unless he's looking for a career change as an actor and just wanted to look pissed off.
 
I find it hard to believe that non-union DirectTV has a wage scale comparable to union AT&T's. So I entered "DirectTV installer" and got an average wage of $10.81/hour. I then entered "U-verse installer" and got an average wage of $19.94/hour. :shrug: Anyway, like I said, this is (right-to-work) Mississippi. Wages on average tend to suck here. I believe the DirectTV guy. He had no reason to lie, unless he's looking for a career change as an actor and just wanted to look pissed off.

where did you go to get your wage stats?
I know next to nothing about Mississippi's cost of living or wages, or anything really... but it shouldn't be hard to believe that union and non-union wage scales are comparable.. you'll find plenty of industries where both are comparable, though unions usually have ancillary benefits that are a bit more generous.
 
And the sad part is AT&T is not training the DirectTV workers to do the phone and data side of it (U-verse, fiber optic installation, etc.), at least not yet.
I’m not clear on the relationship between the two companies but wouldn’t this element imply that the DirectTV installers have a narrower range of skills and training and that would be a legitimate reason for them being paid less?
 
A PHOENIX RISES FROM ITS ASHES!

... it's all about you and nothing about a livable wage

Point well made. Unionization is a key element in terms of Labor Availability & Pay-scale. It is difficult for me to understand why unionization has diminished so greatly in the US. See that evolution since : Union Membership in the United States 1930-2010..

In the US, unionization has declined disgracefully to a very minor percentage (of the total workforce), which the OECD puts it precisely at 10.8%*.

I haven't been a union member since I was a kid at a factory that made shirts in Central Massachusetts. That shop is long gone. But the discussion here is not about saving jobs that cannot be saved, but those that can be saved.

And, to do so, American workers have to wake up to the fact that unions are the only way to do so.

Now that remark needs some qualification. After all, the unions did not save Detroit from its implosion in the 2008/2010 time-frame. In fact, I would say they were the cause of the catastrophe that remodeled car-making in the US.

Unions have a bad habit of continuously trying to improve the wages of their members. Meaning this, given the way in which the world has changed, the US has a wage-problem as regards base manufacturing. The Bamboo Curtain came crashing down in 1991, and labor has never since been the same in the US.

My point is simple: If we are to "save wages in American industry" we must recognize two central "happenings":
*First, automation is going to accelerate even further, thus replacing even more people in manufacturing jobs. Robotics will see to that - and that we cannot avoid.
*Secondly, if that is indeed the case, robotics still need people to run an automated production line - but nothing like the numbers of line-workers in the past. Where are these people to come from, if we don't train them? And who would be a better candidate for such training than someone who has production-line experience?
*Thirdly, if we do indeed make it easier for manufacturers to adopt production-line Robotic Technology in America, then we could actually bring jobs back from China!

WHAT? BRING JOBS BACK FROM CHINA?

YES!

Any production line is simply a logical progression of steps in the elaboration of a work-process. Where once these manufacturing processes - once performed by humans - now they are performed far more deftly by machines. But, that does not mean that an automated-production line does not need management oversight by professionals.

We could actually bring jobs back to America ... and it is unions that should take the lead.

HOWZAT?

By convincing the Federal Government to promote Industrial Manufacturing Automated Processes; and, most importantly, providing (free, gratis, and for nothing) the training to provide a skilled manpower to employ them!

* OECD numbers here.
 
Last edited:
where did you go to get your wage stats?

I used yours--Glassdoor.

I know next to nothing about Mississippi's cost of living or wages, or anything really... but it shouldn't be hard to believe that union and non-union wage scales are comparable..

Well, it is for me, because I've received so many clues from other industries, such as autos. The almost constant refrain from anti-union types was how the UAW was bankrupting the Big Three. Of course, automakers can fight back by moving to right-to-work states or overseas, where labor costs are lower. A regulated utility like AT&T can't just pick up its billions of dollars worth of real estate and easements and technological infrastructure and move to Mexico.
 
Last edited:
I’m not clear on the relationship between the two companies but wouldn’t this element imply that the DirectTV installers have a narrower range of skills and training and that would be a legitimate reason for them being paid less?

Yeah, that's possible. I don't think it accounts for the entire or even a majority of the wage differential, however.
 
Yeah, that's possible. I don't think it accounts for the entire or even a majority of the wage differential, however.

Why don't you think so?
 
So my older son works as an installer for AT&T. He just started with the company. Today (yes, Sunday) an installer for DirectTV came by my son's house to install the service. (Son gets the Ultimate package, a DVR, and three receivers for ten bucks a month, thanks to being an AT&T employee. :)) The Direct guy, um, directly asked my son what his hourly wage was. Turns out my freshly-minted union son (Communications Workers of America) makes about $7 per hour more than the DirectTV veteran. (He was really surprised when he found out that bucket truck drivers make $30-plus per hour.) Needless to say, this guy was not pleased. And the sad part is AT&T is not training the DirectTV workers to do the phone and data side of it (U-verse, fiber optic installation, etc.), at least not yet. At this point they're "valued employees" who are sort of like lost-stepchildren. If they're smart they'll join the union.

That might be part of the reason why DirecTV is so much cheaper than most other providers and why ATT is more expensive than most of their competitors. Odd how raising a cost with no benefit can do that....
 
That might be part of the reason why DirecTV is so much cheaper than most other providers and why ATT is more expensive than most of their competitors. Odd how raising a cost with no benefit can do that....
Funny, but I haven't heard people bragging about the great service and prices they get from largely non - union Comcast. But the family that controls it seems to have alright.
 
so lets have liberal unions raise wages at the point of a gun until all of our jobs have gone to China!! Good plan!!

The objective is to raise wages to a "living wage" and not a "market-wage". The latter is whatever wage the market will bear and the lower the better, because low-wages enhance profits and profits make for good stock-option valuations. A "living-wage", otoh, is one where the individual can live in dignity covering the costs of at least the first two-levels of Maslow's Hierachy of Needs.

There must be "fairness" (not equality) between the actors of a market-economy where each finds their just-return on their investment - on the one hand their work-effort and on the other a resulting R-o-I.

There must be an equilibrium between the two, and for the moment such does not exist. Because, were it to exist, the exaggerated extent of Income Disparity in the present economy would not exist ...
 
Funny, but I haven't heard people bragging about the great service and prices they get from largely non - union Comcast. But the family that controls it seems to have DONE alright.

There. Better.
 
I used yours--Glassdoor.



Well, it is for me, because I've received so many clues from other industries, such as autos. The almost constant refrain from anti-union types was how the UAW was bankrupting the Big Three. Of course, automakers can fight back by moving to right-to-work states or overseas, where labor costs are lower. A regulated utility like AT&T can't just pick up its billions of dollars worth of real estate and easements and technological infrastructure and move to Mexico.

I've been directly involved in many industries were union and non union wages were very close, and even closer when you look at specific firms... trucking( drivers) is one of them, stevedores, culinary workers, casino employees ( generally back house staff), freight workers..... but there are certainly industries where union wages are higher, sometimes substantially higher, than non-union( especially government workers).... it's really not as simple as " unions always pay more", and never has been.
.
 
Why don't you think so?

Just a gut feeling and simple logic. Generally speaking, companies won't part with a nickel unless someone pries if from their fingers. Forty years of "economizing" and "synergy" advice from consulting firms has guaranteed that. So it stands to reason that workers who bargain collectively for higher wages would earn more, perhaps considerably more, than workers who don't, even if they perform essentially the same tasks.
 
I've been directly involved in many industries were union and non union wages were very close, and even closer when you look at specific firms... trucking( drivers) is one of them, stevedores, culinary workers, casino employees ( generally back house staff), freight workers..... but there are certainly industries where union wages are higher, sometimes substantially higher, than non-union( especially government workers).... it's really not as simple as " unions always pay more", and never has been.
.

Just as competition tends to erode profits for companies that face competition, that's undoubtedly true in industries where workers face direct competition from non-union workers. Where workers and professionals (think doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc.) are able to erect an economic "moat" and stifle competition, that's not so much the case. Look, for example, at doctors, who have one of the best unions in the country in the AMA, and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which recently brought West Coast shipping to its knees. And I would argue that the company that brings the Internet into millions of homes and businesses across the country has erected the Great Wall of China for its workers.

Small but powerful union is at center of port dispute - LA Times

https://www.aei.org/publication/american-medical-association-the-strongest-trade-union-in-the-u-s-a/
 
No, the DirectTV guys need raises.

No he doesn't. If he doesn't like what the buyer of his labor wants to pay, don't sell labor to the buyer.

Labor unions are cartels. Cartels are illegal under our antitrust laws, except labor unions were then explicitly exempted from having to abide by those laws after the fact. Cartels, including labor cartels, shouldn't exist in this country at all.
 
No he doesn't. If he doesn't like what the buyer of his labor wants to pay, don't sell labor to the buyer.

Labor unions are cartels. Cartels are illegal under our antitrust laws, except labor unions were then explicitly exempted from having to abide by those laws after the fact. Cartels, including labor cartels, shouldn't exist in this country at all.

or maybe to be fair we could let owners organize against workers so as not to over pay them and see even more of our companies driven off shore to low wage countries!!
 
No he doesn't. If he doesn't like what the buyer of his labor wants to pay, don't sell labor to the buyer.

Or they can band together and create or join a union, which our courts and Congress have said they have every right to do. :2wave:

Labor unions are cartels. Cartels are illegal under our antitrust laws, except labor unions were then explicitly exempted from having to abide by those laws after the fact. Cartels, including labor cartels, shouldn't exist in this country at all.

The Sherman Antitrust Act. wasn't written to kick workers in the nuts. It was a government solution to the natural tendency of businesses to collude and monopolize industry. On the other hand, the National Labor Relations Act recognized the fact that companies held most of the cards when it came to setting terms of employment. Workers as individuals have the rights of freedom of association and to speak to corporate managements as one voice.
 
or maybe to be fair we could let owners organize against workers so as not to over pay them and see even more of our companies driven off shore to low wage countries!!

There's no legit place for cartels in this country.

Cartels are monopolistic organizations. They rely on monopoly power to secure more for themselves. They cannot survive in a healthy competitive market where buyers have choices. This is why our most heavily unionized sectors (by far) are local government, state government, federal government, public education, and utilities. The public sector is not for-profit, and those who ultimately pay the bills don't have choices but to pay taxes and rates. Cartels love and need this type of environment to thrive. Conversely unionism does horribly in competitive private sector industries where companies compete on price for customers. The telecom industry is no stranger to antitrust issues either, which is unsurprising because telecom has public good characteristics too.
 
Or they can band together and create or join a union, which our courts and Congress have said they have every right to do.

I know they've said that. They need to change their minds, recognize that labor organizations are monopolistic cartels, recognize that cartels are bad for the country, and repeal the laws that grant them every unique privilege to do what no other organization in the country can legally do.

The Sherman Antitrust Act. wasn't written to kick workers in the nuts. It was a government solution to the natural tendency of businesses to collude and monopolize industry.

It's a natural tendency of sellers of anything to want to organize against buyers in order to monopolize the market of what they sell and hike prices. The SAA was passed to prohibit this. A later law then gave special exemption to sellers of labor. This should be repealed.

Workers as individuals have the rights of freedom of association and to speak to corporate managements as one voice.

Sure, but management, whether corporate or public, should have every right to refuse to buy labor from workers who form associations and "speak to them as one voice" if they don't agree with the demands of the group. There should be no compulsion for anyone to buy labor or anything else from a single monopolistic source/closed shop.

The NLRA and Clayton should be repealed, should extend to prohibit labor cartels among all political subdivisions, and RTW should be nationalized.
 
or maybe to be fair we could let owners organize against workers so as not to over pay them and see even more of our companies driven off shore to low wage countries!!

Overpay them compared to what? People talk about a living wage. The minimum wage in Mexico is 73 pesos ($4.07) per day! How many Americans would be willing or able to live on that?

If wages are the primary determinant of whether a company chooses to locate outside of this country, the lack of a labor union won't save those jobs. Already, we're seeing companies decide that Chinese labor is too expensive, so they're closing up shop and pitching their tents in countries like Laos and Vietnam. Next, I suppose, it Myanmar. So good luck with your plan.
 
Overpay them compared to what?

The market. I.e. compared to the price for which other individual sellers of the same type of labor are willing to do the job.

If wages are the primary determinant of whether a company chooses to locate outside of this country, the lack of a labor union won't save those jobs.

The existence of a union encourages it be considered and pursued that much sooner, assuming the union was able to push the organization's labor costs higher than otherwise. Unions pride themselves in forcing organizations' labor costs higher and less of a good deal in monetary terms, so they fuel the search to get the job done cheaper (elsewhere).
 
Back
Top Bottom