Wait, are you saying that the fat cats would universally lose sympathy for the little guy and, what, cut their benefits or something? I’m not sure what you mean.
That is the end game. Silicon Valley is lucky so far.
One of the inexplicable things to me is the anti-unionism among technologists. You know, someday the billionaires won't like you, and then you'll be screwed and have nowhere to go.
The problem is this, why should I have to work to support both the company I wok for and a (second) bunch of crooks?
This is going back many years, but a year or so after leaving high school I went to the state fair. One pavilion was set up with a bunch of different unions recruiting new members. Being open minded and having an interest in at least one industry represented I decided to have a look around. What impressed me the most wasn't the Union members recruiting nor all the free information, it was rather all the cars they had parked out back. Mind you this was in the very late seventies but I don't beleive there was a car parked there worth less than $100,000, most of them worth much more. Obviously those Union dues where doing somebody good but I really doubt the average worker benefited that much. As things finally panned out, over the years, most of the workers represented by those unions got screwed bad. That is they ended up unemployed or working in really menial jobs.
In any event I still try to keep an open mind, some industries just don't work well without the union structure behind them. Certain trades certainly qualify here. Even so I'm still haunted by the idea that far too much of ones union dues go to support fat cats that do little for the average worker.
The vast majority of those jobs require far more skill than a security guard needs to sit on his ass at an entry point. I'm not sure where the attitude comes from that every job out there needs to offer a living wage, it is nonsense really. The fact is this wage rate average is way beyond the minimal wage seen for guards in other locations.
For the benefit of those outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, $19.77 per hour isn't as much as one might think.
As examples, the following are representative wages and living costs in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Firefighter - $24 per hour
Automotive Mechanic - $26 per hour
Police Patrol Officer - $30 per hour
Retail Store Manager - $30 per hour
High School Teacher - $32 per hour
Network Administrator - $38 per hour
Registered Nurse - $39 per hour
Computer Programmer - $40 per hour
Project Manager - $46 per hour
These are average wages from Salary.com although the wages seem low to me.
It depends upon whole the survey was made for. Corporations often use surveys designed to bias wage rates to the low end. That being said if you actually have programmers earning by the hour then most of those programmers would end up being very rich.
I provided the examples of wages as a reference. As previously stated, the wages seem low to me. For example, $39 per hour for a Registered Nurse is entry level pay from a decade ago. Perhaps the nurses at the county medical center (Santa Clara County Medical Center) are paid $39 per hour but I don't know a single nurse who makes only $39 per hour.
Those numbers seem low to you because you're in CA.
I don't see anything wrong with giving them a pay raise since the company is doing so well. But you don't want to strengthen the union, they will just use any additional funding they get against you in future. Ideally you want to starve them of funding in fact.
One way to do both would be to offer a big pay raise to non-union guards only. This would share the wealth while causing (or at least incentivising) an exodus from the union.
For the benefit of those outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, $19.77 per hour isn't as much as one might think.
As examples, the following are representative wages and living costs in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Firefighter - $24 per hour
Automotive Mechanic - $26 per hour
Police Patrol Officer - $30 per hour
Retail Store Manager - $30 per hour
High School Teacher - $32 per hour
Network Administrator - $38 per hour
Registered Nurse - $39 per hour
Computer Programmer - $40 per hour
Project Manager - $46 per hour
These are average wages from Salary.com although the wages seem low to me.
As others have pointed out, the majority of these jobs are not unskilled labor. Second, you say these are "representative wages and living costs" however all you listed was estimated average wages for some random skilled positions. I wonder why nearly $20/hr "isn't as much as one might think" in the San Francisco Bay Area?
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
"Employees holding skill positions at tech companies like Apple are widely considered to garner lopsided salaries compared to contract workers who perform menial duties, such as security guards."
Huh, people with valuable, uncommon skills make more money than unskilled workers. Mind boggling.
This obviously can't be true. This couldn't be true in such a pinnacle of liberalism such as San Francisco. Its a utopia of sunshine, rainbows, butterflies and unicorns! /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
Those numbers seem low to you because you're in CA.
Shocking, you are kidding right? California couldn't possibly have a higher cost of living, they follow the liberal agenda to the letter. There is absolutely no way that San Francisco could have a higher cost of living, they have the highest minimum wage in the country and the most regulation of things. /s
While unions served a great purpose a hundred years ago, they have since morphed into self-serving thug organizations. They don't give a crap about their members. All they care about is raking in all that dues money.
While unions served a great purpose a hundred years ago, they have since morphed into self-serving thug organizations. They don't give a crap about their members. All they care about is raking in all that dues money.
Actually, that has always been the case. The moment an individual chooses to allow a representative to act in their stead, that representative will be working for their own interests, in addition to those of the person represented.
Self-interest is as natural as eating or sleeping, yet so many still cannot accept or recognize this fact of life. Nothing is free, there is self-interest in all human actions and whether one chooses to characterize that action as "good" or "bad" depends on which side of that action they sit. If they benefit, it's almost always "good"!
Actually, that has always been the case. The moment an individual chooses to allow a representative to act in their stead, that representative will be working for their own interests, in addition to those of the person represented.
Self-interest is as natural as eating or sleeping, yet so many still cannot accept or recognize this fact of life. Nothing is free, there is self-interest in all human actions and whether one chooses to characterize that action as "good" or "bad" depends on which side of that action they sit. If they benefit, it's almost always "good"!
Absolutely true. But now, unions think only of their own self interest, not that of their members. We saw this especially when the unions bankrupted Hostess rather than make concessions. Instead of a pay cut, everyone lost their jobs.
Absolutely true. But now, unions think only of their own self interest, not that of their members. We saw this especially when the unions bankrupted Hostess rather than make concessions. Instead of a pay cut, everyone lost their jobs. :rolleyes:
Exactly. The philly convention center had 6 unions and were losing business. The admins wanted new friendlier work rules and 4 of the 6 signed on by the deadline. The other 2 were SOL and were not allowed to work. Now business is up yet the members of those 2 unions can't work at the center. Plus those 4 were more productive than the 6.
Absolutely true. But now, unions think only of their own self interest, not that of their members. We saw this especially when the unions bankrupted Hostess rather than make concessions. Instead of a pay cut, everyone lost their jobs.
I remember that happening a little while ago.
The damn Unions killed Twinkies!
I do feel that the right thing happened. Instead of giving in to the Unions, they just shut down and killed all of the jobs! I thought that was a great move! Let that be a lesson for all thuggish Unions!
I do feel that the right thing happened. Instead of giving in to the Unions, they just shut down and killed all of the jobs! I thought that was a great move! Let that be a lesson for all thuggish Unions!
Mismanagement kills companies, not unions. In Germany the union president sits on the board of directors, so he/she is intimately aware of the company's financial health, and knows when to ask for more, or when concessions are necessary for the benefit of all.
Mismanagement kills companies, not unions. In Germany the union president sits on the board of directors, so he/she is intimately aware of the company's financial health, and knows when to ask for more, or when concessions are necessary for the benefit of all.
That's a clear conflict of interest. How that is allowed is beyond me.
That's a clear conflict of interest. How that is allowed is beyond me.
In the 1980's, when Ford was about to go bankrupt, part of the way they managed to get the UAW to cut them enough slack to survive until 1986 (so they could launch the Taurus) was to involve the union and let them know just how bad the finances were. It was a landmark deal at the time, and if it hadn't happened, it's doubtful Ford would have been able to survive the early 1980's. Chapter 11 was just around the corner.
In the 1980's, when Ford was about to go bankrupt, part of the way they managed to get the UAW to cut them enough slack to survive until 1986 (so they could launch the Taurus) was to involve the union and let them know just how bad the finances were. It was a landmark deal at the time, and if it hadn't happened, it's doubtful Ford would have been able to survive the early 1980's. Chapter 11 was just around the corner.
Comments
Wait, are you saying that the fat cats would universally lose sympathy for the little guy and, what, cut their benefits or something? I’m not sure what you mean.
That is the end game. Silicon Valley is lucky so far.
It’s not even the start of the game. The game isn’t even in the closet. It never left the store shelf.
The problem is this, why should I have to work to support both the company I wok for and a (second) bunch of crooks?
This is going back many years, but a year or so after leaving high school I went to the state fair. One pavilion was set up with a bunch of different unions recruiting new members. Being open minded and having an interest in at least one industry represented I decided to have a look around. What impressed me the most wasn't the Union members recruiting nor all the free information, it was rather all the cars they had parked out back. Mind you this was in the very late seventies but I don't beleive there was a car parked there worth less than $100,000, most of them worth much more. Obviously those Union dues where doing somebody good but I really doubt the average worker benefited that much. As things finally panned out, over the years, most of the workers represented by those unions got screwed bad. That is they ended up unemployed or working in really menial jobs.
In any event I still try to keep an open mind, some industries just don't work well without the union structure behind them. Certain trades certainly qualify here. Even so I'm still haunted by the idea that far too much of ones union dues go to support fat cats that do little for the average worker.
It depends upon whole the survey was made for. Corporations often use surveys designed to bias wage rates to the low end. That being said if you actually have programmers earning by the hour then most of those programmers would end up being very rich.
Those numbers seem low to you because you're in CA.
I don't see anything wrong with giving them a pay raise since the company is doing so well. But you don't want to strengthen the union, they will just use any additional funding they get against you in future. Ideally you want to starve them of funding in fact.
One way to do both would be to offer a big pay raise to non-union guards only. This would share the wealth while causing (or at least incentivising) an exodus from the union.
For the benefit of those outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, $19.77 per hour isn't as much as one might think.
As examples, the following are representative wages and living costs in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Firefighter - $24 per hour
Automotive Mechanic - $26 per hour
Police Patrol Officer - $30 per hour
Retail Store Manager - $30 per hour
High School Teacher - $32 per hour
Network Administrator - $38 per hour
Registered Nurse - $39 per hour
Computer Programmer - $40 per hour
Project Manager - $46 per hour
These are average wages from Salary.com although the wages seem low to me.
As others have pointed out, the majority of these jobs are not unskilled labor. Second, you say these are "representative wages and living costs" however all you listed was estimated average wages for some random skilled positions. I wonder why nearly $20/hr "isn't as much as one might think" in the San Francisco Bay Area?
"Employees holding skill positions at tech companies like Apple are widely considered to garner lopsided salaries compared to contract workers who perform menial duties, such as security guards."
Huh, people with valuable, uncommon skills make more money than unskilled workers. Mind boggling.
This obviously can't be true. This couldn't be true in such a pinnacle of liberalism such as San Francisco. Its a utopia of sunshine, rainbows, butterflies and unicorns! /s
Those numbers seem low to you because you're in CA.
Shocking, you are kidding right? California couldn't possibly have a higher cost of living, they follow the liberal agenda to the letter. There is absolutely no way that San Francisco could have a higher cost of living, they have the highest minimum wage in the country and the most regulation of things. /s
Actually, that has always been the case. The moment an individual chooses to allow a representative to act in their stead, that representative will be working for their own interests, in addition to those of the person represented.
Self-interest is as natural as eating or sleeping, yet so many still cannot accept or recognize this fact of life. Nothing is free, there is self-interest in all human actions and whether one chooses to characterize that action as "good" or "bad" depends on which side of that action they sit. If they benefit, it's almost always "good"!
Actually, that has always been the case. The moment an individual chooses to allow a representative to act in their stead, that representative will be working for their own interests, in addition to those of the person represented.
Self-interest is as natural as eating or sleeping, yet so many still cannot accept or recognize this fact of life. Nothing is free, there is self-interest in all human actions and whether one chooses to characterize that action as "good" or "bad" depends on which side of that action they sit. If they benefit, it's almost always "good"!
Absolutely true. But now, unions think only of their own self interest, not that of their members. We saw this especially when the unions bankrupted Hostess rather than make concessions. Instead of a pay cut, everyone lost their jobs.
Exactly. The philly convention center had 6 unions and were losing business. The admins wanted new friendlier work rules and 4 of the 6 signed on by the deadline. The other 2 were SOL and were not allowed to work. Now business is up yet the members of those 2 unions can't work at the center. Plus those 4 were more productive than the 6.
Absolutely true. But now, unions think only of their own self interest, not that of their members. We saw this especially when the unions bankrupted Hostess rather than make concessions. Instead of a pay cut, everyone lost their jobs.
I remember that happening a little while ago.
The damn Unions killed Twinkies!
I do feel that the right thing happened. Instead of giving in to the Unions, they just shut down and killed all of the jobs! I thought that was a great move! Let that be a lesson for all thuggish Unions!
Mismanagement kills companies, not unions. In Germany the union president sits on the board of directors, so he/she is intimately aware of the company's financial health, and knows when to ask for more, or when concessions are necessary for the benefit of all.
That's a clear conflict of interest. How that is allowed is beyond me.
Can we please stop calling it a campus? It's the largest, most powerful company in the world. Not a university or college.
/rant
What does Apple call it?
Quote:
That's a clear conflict of interest. How that is allowed is beyond me.
In the 1980's, when Ford was about to go bankrupt, part of the way they managed to get the UAW to cut them enough slack to survive until 1986 (so they could launch the Taurus) was to involve the union and let them know just how bad the finances were. It was a landmark deal at the time, and if it hadn't happened, it's doubtful Ford would have been able to survive the early 1980's. Chapter 11 was just around the corner.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2029/SWP-1384-09343825.pdf?sequence=1
Can we please stop calling it a campus? It's the largest, most powerful company in the world. Not a university or college.
/rant
Apple calls it a campus. The new location is Apple Campus 2.
It's a conflict of interest if the union leader is on the board of directors and is compensated, as is typical for board members.
Apple calls it a campus. The new location is Apple Campus 2.
Apple can call it anything they want, but that doesn't make it so. At least not IMO.