But there is no law requiring an employer to provide an retirement and if someone is willing to work for cheaper, why shouldn't he/she be replaced?
but the employer can give the appearance of a retirement plan to entice the desirable employees. and then using the classic carrot and stick, takes away the retirement carrot and gives the aged employee the stick - no job with no retirement benefits and a then lessened opportunity to go forward and earn them elsewhere
Widespread exploitative businesses before unionization is a myth perpetuated by ****ty history teachers.
if only you were correct
i am an old fart. but remember as a boy of nine going to my grandmother's friend's home. it was a tiny place right beside the mill she had worked in all her life
she showed me the box she used when she was a girl of six working in that textile mill. the box was needed so that she would be tall enough to reach the machines. she pushed the box from one machine to the next. smart woman, but uneducated. tough to go to school while also working a 10 hour shift six days per week at the mill - when you are six years old
she told me of the working conditions she had to endure. that alone tells me the history teachers have it right. your attempt to re-write history is misguided
That's not an investment, they got paid for working the whole time.
they did get paid for the time worked. they did not get paid for the retirement benefits they had earned because they were terminated before becoming vested in those benefits
An investment is putting up money and time in exchange for a future payout, these employees have already been paid.
then we agree. the money the employer was (supposedly) salting away in a retirement fund for the employee to enjoy upon retirement was their financial investment. obviously they spent significant time accruing those expected retirement benefits. thus, the employee was fully invested monetarily and with time ... but according to the employer - who would prefer to pocket the sinking fund holding the employee's retirement money - the employee was not vested. terminated instead, forfeiting any right to retirement, because the employer exercised his right to terminate at will
But why should they be?
Why should new workers automatically be grandfathered?
because the workplace remains defined. the employees tend to be fungible. thus the work place defines the site of union representation
New employees did not elect to be represented as such.
no, they didn't. but they knew - or had the opportunity to know - before coming on board that they are about to become a represented employee of a bargaining unit
The employer should be completely able to walk away if the demands are to much.
all but the enlightened owners/employers would always insist that the union demands were too great and cite that as their reason not to agree to union demands
you seem to forget that the employer as does the union, signs a labor-management contract defining the processes of the workplace regarding conditions of employment. that is not a unilaterally crafted agreement
Currently they can't do that when the employee can, why don't we make that level?
no, the union does not get to walk away, either. that would constitute an unfair labor practice of the union. good faith bargaining is required. and if they cannot reach agreement, then the impasse panel can step in and split the baby
you can always screw over the taxpayers for a few more dollars, the management is more easily bought off, and nobody has to worry about producing a quality product or maintaining the bottom line.