And people wonder why the rust belt continues to have economic problems

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

Yikes, simmer down now. No need to go into the canned "You are ignorant, as you have displayed on this and that occasion..." spiel.

I think it was a nice attempt to try to say that benefits packages get better the more you're paid but let's just agree that you're wrong. It was wrong to say that benefits cost more for a construction worker making $20/hr. than one making $15/hr.

I'm sorry you think I'm such a meanie, but I think you're confusing me with somebody else because I'm pretty sure I don't let contempt "spill over into openly hostile posts towards other users that have no basis in fact and no merit with relation to the thread you're posting in."

I've witnessed you on more than one occasion try to talk down to other posters without offering any support for your arguments. In fact you're doing it in this very post, summarily concluding that I am incorrect without offering any support of your argument.

Note that I said NOTHING regarding the benefits package being more costly for a worker being paid $20/hr than for a worker being $15/hr. I said in general the benefits typically roughly double the cost per hour of that worker to his or her employer.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

Like I said, you don't understand the concept of negotiation. You don't get what you initially ask for, so you ask for more than what you want to end up with. I'm not going to justify numbers that are part of a negotiation because everybody and their mom understands that both sides exaggerate their hand in order to get what they really want.

I would here note that you obviously don't understand negotiation or you're letting your own bias color the negotiation, because you seem to have no problem with the workers exaggerating their hand, yet you're attacking the builder employing them for doing exactly the same.

The difference here is the fact that the builder is not going to an outside entity to try and force his exaggerated demands upon the workers, whereas the workers are doing exactly that.

[Publius]

I would further again request that you point out any post made by me where I say that I am "keen on" minimum wage jobs.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

I've witnessed you on more than one occasion try to talk down to other posters without offering any support for your arguments. In fact you're doing it in this very post, summarily concluding that I am incorrect without offering any support of your argument.

Note that I said NOTHING regarding the benefits package being more costly for a worker being paid $20/hr than for a worker being $15/hr. I said in general the benefits typically roughly double the cost per hour of that worker to his or her employer.

So I'm the charlatan after you maintain that benefit costs for a worker making $8 will skyrocket when their wages are raised to $20+/hr? Ooookay.

[Scrum]

This is a higher risk job. These people may have killed someone due to their business practices. I don't see any problem with the unions wanting more money for their workers.
This isn't much different than a car insurance company charging you more because of a DUI.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

I would here note that you obviously don't understand negotiation or you're letting your own bias color the negotiation, because you seem to have no problem with the workers exaggerating their hand, yet you're attacking the builder employing them for doing exactly the same.

The difference here is the fact that the builder is not going to an outside entity to try and force his exaggerated demands upon the workers, whereas the workers are doing exactly that.

Wow, I'm really trying to be civil here but honestly, what the hell do you think this news article is? An unbiased account of the business proceedings of Buffalo, NY? Give me a break. Once again, STANDARD NEGOTIATION TACTICS. They're going to the press to threaten the viability of the project.

Ebb and flow here. If anybody is letting their own bias color things, it's you not recognizing that you're buying the company line without even looking at the situation. I can rationally tell you that this whole thread is about negotiation and we're both talking about different sides of it. The difference is that I know it's a negotiation and you think it's life and death.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

So I'm the charlatan after you maintain that benefit costs for a worker making $8 will skyrocket when their wages are raised to $20+/hr? Ooookay.

I ask that you point out where I said this, as well. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I'll quote for you exactly what I said so you can refresh yourself on it:

Originally Posted by Publius

$23/hr + benefit costs. If I remember correctly, benefits can sometimes add up to double the original wage in terms of cost per worker.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

I ask that you point out where I said this, as well. You're trying to put words in my mouth. I'll quote for you exactly what I said so you can refresh yourself on it:

Okay, so what exactly are you trying to say? Taking your post at face value the cost for giving benefits to the workers now earning $8/hr is $16/hr. When the wages go up to $23/hr. you're saying it's now $46/hr. So now you can explain to everybody what you really meant.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

Wow, I'm really trying to be civil here but honestly, what the hell do you think this news article is? An unbiased account of the business proceedings of Buffalo, NY? Give me a break. Once again, STANDARD NEGOTIATION TACTICS. They're going to the press to threaten the viability of the project.

Ebb and flow here. If anybody is letting their own bias color things, it's you not recognizing that you're buying the company line without even looking at the situation. I can rationally tell you that this whole thread is about negotiation and we're both talking about different sides of it. The difference is that I know it's a negotiation and you think it's life and death.

Worker Group: "If you don't pay us more than you're willing to pay, we're going to tangle you up in a legal mess and get the government involved."

Builder: "If you don't stop trying to force me to pay more than I'm willing to pay, I'm not going to build it."

It seems to me that the worker group is the one being unreasonable. The builder has every right to back out of a business deal if it is more costly than he is willing to pay, that's just good business. So long as what he is willing to pay isn't below any legal limits (it isn't), then the workers really have no recourse to FORCE him to pay more.

You're argument isn't colored by facts, it's colored by an infatuation with labor. My argument, on the other hand, is colored by economic and legal facts.

Economic Fact: it is bad business to pay more than you're willing to pay for a product/service

Legal Fact: the builder is not engaging in illegal activities with regards to payment to workers

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

Okay, so what exactly are you trying to say? Taking your post at face value the cost for giving benefits to the workers now earning $8/hr is $16/hr. When the wages go up to $23/hr. you're saying it's now $46/hr. So now you can explain to everybody what you really meant.

sometimes - adverb - on some occasions; at times; now and then
up to - idiom - as many as; to the limit of ... also: as far as or approaching (a certain part, degree, point, etc.)

^^ a couple of definitions that should help you understand my post, because if you understand these two things my post is pretty freaking clear.

[Publius]

I'll again point out that your entire negotiation premise is flawed because there is ZERO correlation between worker pay and worker safety, so the two need not be negotiated together as the worker group seems absolutely insistent on doing. They could negotiate better safety on the work site completely separately from negotiating an inflated wage.

But instead they want to negotiate them together so that they can put pressure on the builder by trying to win the PR battle with, "he won't make our work environment more safe!" and omitting the fact that they're requesting a wage increase that would pay them far beyond the market value of their work at the same time as part of the same package.

It's the equivalent of the Congress inserting a rider about it being cool to kill babies in a military spending bill, then attacking any member of Congress that votes against the bill for, "not wanting to fund our troops!"

[Scrum]

So what keeps this guy from hiring non-union workers if he doesn't want to pay as much?

Do they pass laws saying only a union worker can do certain things?

[kinggovernor]

for the numbers that back up what I was saying:

Workers in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York, metropolitan
area averaged $19.22 per hour during July 2005, according to a new
survey released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor. Regional Commissioner Michael L. Dolfman
reported that white-collar workers averaged $21.38 per hour and
accounted for 54 percent of the workers in the area. Blue-collar
employees averaged $18.09 per hour and represented 29 percent of the
workforce, while the remainder worked in service occupations and
earned $14.09 per hour. (See table 1.)
In the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area, average hourly
wages were published for 28 detailed occupations. (See table 1.)
Among white-collar workers, computer systems analysts and scientists
averaged $26.40 per hour; registered nurses, $25.13; and secretaries,
$16.94. Blue-collar occupations included industrial machinery
repairers earning $22.51 per hour, truck drivers at $19.17, and
automobile mechanics at $18.15. In the service occupations, janitors
and cleaners averaged $12.20 per hour
HIGHLIGHTS OF BUFFALO, NY NATIONAL COMPENSATION SURVEY MARCH 2003

So why should the workers demand a salary that is so high? Because the government (local goverment is controlled by democrats, funded by unions) will back them up. And then when the project builder pulls out, like most have, these unions will blame "big business"

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So what keeps this guy from hiring non-union workers if he doesn't want to pay as much?

Do they pass laws saying only a union worker can do certain things?

in a lot of cases yes, and I'd be willing to bet this is the case in the Buffalo area. There is also the possibility that the worker union has recruited all the members in the area of one or more specialties that the builder needs, and threaten strike if the builder hires ANY non-union workers even if in an unrelated part of the process (this is more common).

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So what keeps this guy from hiring non-union workers if he doesn't want to pay as much?

Do they pass laws saying only a union worker can do certain things?

he did have non-union workers, then the unions tried to get them to organize because it was bad for union business. The delevoper fires those that try to unionize because they will demand more money for the same work. See a union can pressure people to organize but a developer can't The "National Labor Relations Board" then steps in and starts an "investigation"

If they want to organize he should have to the right to fire them

[kinggovernor]

Examples of Your Rights As An Employee Under the NLRA Are:
Forming, or attempting to form, a union among the employees of your employer.
Joining a union whether the union is recognized by your employer or not.
Assisting a union in organizing your fellow employees.
Engaging in protected concerted activities. Generally, "protected concerted activity" is group activity which seeks to modify wages or working conditions.
Refusing to do any or all of these things. However, the union and employer, in a State where such agreements are permitted, may enter into a lawful union-security clause requiring employees to pay union dues and fees.
NLRB | Workplace Rights | Employee Rights

x11ty billion. You can't be forced to join a union unless we say so. Also the employer is forced to accept you union

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

sometimes - adverb - on some occasions; at times; now and then
up to - idiom - as many as; to the limit of ... also: as far as or approaching (a certain part, degree, point, etc.)

^^ a couple of definitions that should help you understand my post, because if you understand these two things my post is pretty freaking clear.

Okay, so by your waffling I'll assume your post meant nothing then. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bheld

Okay, so by your waffling I'll assume your post meant nothing then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ive not waffled at all. The post is perfectly clear. If I remember correctly, sometimes benefits can up to double a worker's wage. It's impossible for me to be more clear than that, because that's about as basic a way as there is to say it.

But enjoy sticking your head in the sand when you can't argue against another person rationally.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'll again point out that your entire negotiation premise is flawed because there is ZERO correlation between worker pay and worker safety, so the two need not be negotiated together as the worker group seems absolutely insistent on doing. They could negotiate better safety on the work site completely separately from negotiating an inflated wage.

But instead they want to negotiate them together so that they can put pressure on the builder by trying to win the PR battle with, "he won't make our work environment more safe!" and omitting the fact that they're requesting a wage increase that would pay them far beyond the market value of their work at the same time as part of the same package.

It's the equivalent of the Congress inserting a rider about it being cool to kill babies in a military spending bill, then attacking any member of Congress that votes against the bill for, "not wanting to fund our troops!"

Yeah, funny how unions seem to have their hand in everything that affects the laborer. Safety, wages, benefits, job security, I wonder why they don't just come up with separate unions for each one of those issues.

I don't understand what your point is other than how much you dislike unions.