While I agree with your example of hiring a plumbing company for your house, it's quite a different situation when a large company hires a large contractor for a commercial job.
The problem here is that these people don't appear to be working for the contractor at all. As such they are just causing trouble and trying to sway public opinion.
Companies do put in their contracts that their contractors must meet certain minimal standards or be unionized.
Some do but many don't. I know how one I work for doesn't care one way or the other. Sometimes the low bidder becomes a problem though because at some point you just can't get a quality job done by underbidding.
Apple has a choice when choosing contractors and there's no reason why they can't demand that their contractors pay decent wages.
It isn't up to Apple and frankly they would be foolish to demand high wages from their contractors.
I'm sure Apple makes their contractors sign very detailed and restrictive contracts. For example, I'm sure Apple makes their contractors carry huge amounts of liability insurance. (Even in my 200-unit co-op apartment building, if I hire a painter or have my bathroom renovated or even have an appliance delivered, the contractor must, among many other things, submit liability and worker's compensation insurance documents (minimum of $1 million) in advance naming both the co-op and the co-op's management company as "additional insureds".)
That really has nothing to do with this issue though. In any event how far do you think Apple should go in demanding specific wages?
Considering what Apple is reputed to pay for the construction of each of their retail locations (much higher than industry averages, especially for the standalone stores), it's Apple that's getting ripped off if the workers aren't paid decently.
That makes no sense at all! Apple is paying for quality work, how the contractor accomplishes that is not Apples problem.
While Apple isn't their direct employer, large companies can't use contractors as an excuse as to why the workers are poorly paid. This is no different than when Walmart used contractors to clean the stores and the employees were illegally locked into the stores at night and paid at most, minimum wage, but many received less than the legal wage.
I'm not sure what you are going on about here. Large companies aren't using contractors as an X use for low wages. They hire these companies to get a job done. The wages paid really depends upon the skill and the scarcity of those skills to get the job done.
Well, without getting into a long, detailed discussion... i'll say that i agree with a prior poster that this translates as "hire only union outfits." A few years back the "prevailing wage" (translation: union wage) was $29/hour in California for pipe fitters. Minimum wage at the time was around $8.25/hour. I don't think anyone would argue that someone being paid... say... $19/Hour... was being "ripped off". But hey... it's so unfair.. they are not being paid "prevailing wage". Its fancy terminology being applied to sway opinion.
Agreed. Funny, I used to be pro union. I was in a plumbing union for years.
Quality is more of a thing that is cultural in a company.
Great classroom training. Thing is, half of the class slept through stuff that I was fascinated by. There's a lot chemistry and physics in plumbing, if one cares to be observant, and/or be exceptional. Anyway, my point is, there were a lot of other plumbers that were paid the same as me, but were way shittier as their jobs, for so many reasons.
This is true for any industry. A company being unionized says nothing about the quality of work they might deliver. It really comes down to the management at the company promoting a culture of quality and weeding out those that don't get it. That being said the training that Unions provide is hard to match these days through other sources. Many so called modern companies basically hire people with no intention of aiding professional development or effectively training their new recruits.
Agreed. Funny, I used to be pro union. I was in a plumbing union for years. Great classroom training. Thing is, half of the class slept through stuff that I was fascinated by. There's a lot chemistry and physics in plumbing, if one cares to be observant, and/or be exceptional. Anyway, my point is, there were a lot of other plumbers that were paid the same as me, but were way shittier as their jobs, for so many reasons.
For the most part, unions are not good for people who can be individually recognized and who want to be promoted based on the quality of their work, not their tenure. Unions are intended primarily for situations where there is too high a chance of subjective bias, where there are so many workers that no individuals can stand out, and in situations where the jobs are highly dangerous. If you're good enough to negotiate on your own, you don't need (and don't want) a union because most union wage increases are actually pretty crappy. But if you're one of thousands of workers, many of whom have essentially the same job, you probably do want a union because you have no power as an individual.
And if corporations have proven anything over the last 30 years, where middle class workers have not received a wage increase in real terms, it's that unions do provide real benefits to many workers, although in 2014, only 11.1% of American workers belonged to a union. That compares to over 20% in 1983.
Where I object to unions is when they're corrupt, when they're inflexible (employee A can't do the job of employee B, even if they're being well compensated for it), when they force employers to hire more employees than necessary and when public unions demanded pensions that have become unsustainable, especially when they negotiated a contract where overtime pay counted towards the pension. In many cities, pension payouts are now larger than salary payouts. No one should be collecting a pension that is more than their base salary - in fact, especially where taxpayers are involved, probably no one should be collecting a pension more than 50% of their base salary. And unions generally don't work in situations where employees need to be creative and innovative, although there are unions in the entertainment industry.
Well, without getting into a long, detailed discussion... i'll say that i agree with a prior poster that this translates as "hire only union outfits." A few years back the "prevailing wage" (translation: union wage) was $29/hour in California for pipe fitters. Minimum wage at the time was around $8.25/hour. I don't think anyone would argue that someone being paid... say... $19/Hour... was being "ripped off". But hey... it's so unfair.. they are not being paid "prevailing wage". Its fancy terminology being applied to sway opinion.
I'm all for decent wages but the reality is people don't object to the things that drive wages down excessively. One massive problem right now is unchecked immigration which puts many workers wages into the poverty zone. Unions don't drive wages as much as demand and supply. Currently the market is being flooded with workers that don't really care and maybe don't even understand what minimum wage is much less stuff like benefits.
I'm generally pro Union. But there's a fine line here. This smacks of an attempt to ride on Apple's coat tails, much like the attempts to highlight Apple's supplier's failures to maintain basic worker's rights even though they were head and shoulders above their competition in that department. These are deep pocket picketers. Way too polished, way too similar from venue to venue. There's two groups picketing Apple's operations in Elk Grove, a suburb of Sacramento. Exactly the same signs, exactly the same Grim Reapers. I'm not impressed by well heeled picketers for higher wages. You know, unions have an impact even among the non-unionized. In that way, they help all of us acquire and keep or basic worker rights. So where there is a legitimate need, I welcome unions. I'm just not sure about this group. Not enough information. And if this is just another bunch of people trying to use Apple to push their agenda when Apple's not really the one behind the problem, I'll cross their picket line without a qualm.
Why should "standard wages and benefits" be considered a good thing? If you're an exceptional employee, you'll want to be compensated for outstanding work and not be lumped in with a bunch of layabouts.
If you're an exceptional company, you won't try to cheat your employees. Or perhaps you're arguing that low standards are okay if you're the boss?
Everyone is lining up to get their piece of the goose that laid the golden egg. It's just a matter of time before they rip it all down. Uncle Sugar is next, you know he's gotta get his!
When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.
That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries.” Milton Friedman
The Unions again. Exercising Free Speech. That's fine. They want all work in California and the USA for that matter to be done to the Prevailing Wage Rates. The government funded projects have to.(Could that be contributing to the state is so far in debt ?) Private enterprise does not. Construction company owners do not set the rates.The supply and demand aspects of the Free Enterprise System do. There are lots of issues we need to spend time on.This is not one of them.
Yes, I agree. They have every right to protest assuming they are not Apple's property, for example a sidewalk out front. My original post was a response to someone saying Apple should do something about it, to which I replied that the protestors had the right to do so. But please, keep busting my nuts over something we essentially agree on.
Comments
I'm not sure what you are going on about here. Large companies aren't using contractors as an X use for low wages. They hire these companies to get a job done. The wages paid really depends upon the skill and the scarcity of those skills to get the job done.
Well, without getting into a long, detailed discussion... i'll say that i agree with a prior poster that this translates as "hire only union outfits." A few years back the "prevailing wage" (translation: union wage) was $29/hour in California for pipe fitters. Minimum wage at the time was around $8.25/hour. I don't think anyone would argue that someone being paid... say... $19/Hour... was being "ripped off". But hey... it's so unfair.. they are not being paid "prevailing wage". Its fancy terminology being applied to sway opinion.
This is true for any industry. A company being unionized says nothing about the quality of work they might deliver. It really comes down to the management at the company promoting a culture of quality and weeding out those that don't get it. That being said the training that Unions provide is hard to match these days through other sources. Many so called modern companies basically hire people with no intention of aiding professional development or effectively training their new recruits.
Agreed. Funny, I used to be pro union. I was in a plumbing union for years. Great classroom training. Thing is, half of the class slept through stuff that I was fascinated by. There's a lot chemistry and physics in plumbing, if one cares to be observant, and/or be exceptional. Anyway, my point is, there were a lot of other plumbers that were paid the same as me, but were way shittier as their jobs, for so many reasons.
For the most part, unions are not good for people who can be individually recognized and who want to be promoted based on the quality of their work, not their tenure. Unions are intended primarily for situations where there is too high a chance of subjective bias, where there are so many workers that no individuals can stand out, and in situations where the jobs are highly dangerous. If you're good enough to negotiate on your own, you don't need (and don't want) a union because most union wage increases are actually pretty crappy. But if you're one of thousands of workers, many of whom have essentially the same job, you probably do want a union because you have no power as an individual.
And if corporations have proven anything over the last 30 years, where middle class workers have not received a wage increase in real terms, it's that unions do provide real benefits to many workers, although in 2014, only 11.1% of American workers belonged to a union. That compares to over 20% in 1983.
Where I object to unions is when they're corrupt, when they're inflexible (employee A can't do the job of employee B, even if they're being well compensated for it), when they force employers to hire more employees than necessary and when public unions demanded pensions that have become unsustainable, especially when they negotiated a contract where overtime pay counted towards the pension. In many cities, pension payouts are now larger than salary payouts. No one should be collecting a pension that is more than their base salary - in fact, especially where taxpayers are involved, probably no one should be collecting a pension more than 50% of their base salary. And unions generally don't work in situations where employees need to be creative and innovative, although there are unions in the entertainment industry.
I'm all for decent wages but the reality is people don't object to the things that drive wages down excessively. One massive problem right now is unchecked immigration which puts many workers wages into the poverty zone. Unions don't drive wages as much as demand and supply. Currently the market is being flooded with workers that don't really care and maybe don't even understand what minimum wage is much less stuff like benefits.
These are deep pocket picketers. Way too polished, way too similar from venue to venue. There's two groups picketing Apple's operations in Elk Grove, a suburb of Sacramento. Exactly the same signs, exactly the same Grim Reapers.
I'm not impressed by well heeled picketers for higher wages.
You know, unions have an impact even among the non-unionized. In that way, they help all of us acquire and keep or basic worker rights. So where there is a legitimate need, I welcome unions. I'm just not sure about this group. Not enough information. And if this is just another bunch of people trying to use Apple to push their agenda when Apple's not really the one behind the problem, I'll cross their picket line without a qualm.
Why should "standard wages and benefits" be considered a good thing? If you're an exceptional employee, you'll want to be compensated for outstanding work and not be lumped in with a bunch of layabouts.
If you're an exceptional company, you won't try to cheat your employees. Or perhaps you're arguing that low standards are okay if you're the boss?
Everyone is lining up to get their piece of the goose that laid the golden egg. It's just a matter of time before they rip it all down. Uncle Sugar is next, you know he's gotta get his!
When unions get higher wages for their members by restricting entry into an occupation, those higher wages are at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. When government pays its employees higher wages, those higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayer. But when workers get higher wages and better working conditions through the free market, when they get raises by firm competing with one another for the best workers, by workers competing with one another for the best jobs, those higher wages are at nobody's expense. They can only come from higher productivity, greater capital investment, more widely diffused skills. The whole pie is bigger - there's more for the worker, but there's also more for the employer, the investor, the consumer, and even the tax collector.
That's the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That's the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two centuries.” Milton Friedman
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ppfu0o/working-stiffed
The Daily Show covered this same type of protest in Las Vegas a while back.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ppfu0o/working-stiffed
They want all work in California and the USA for that matter to be done to the Prevailing Wage Rates. The government funded projects have to.(Could that be contributing to the state is so far in debt ?) Private enterprise does not.
Construction company owners do not set the rates.The supply and demand aspects of the Free Enterprise System do.
There are lots of issues we need to spend time on.This is not one of them.
What do you propose that Apple do? The right to free speech and to assemble is a part of our Bill of Rights.
Bill of rights is for the government & citizens, not corporations.
What do you propose that Apple do? The right to free speech and to assemble is a part of our Bill of Rights.
Bill of rights is for the government & citizens, not corporations.
Yes, referring to the protesters' (i.e. citizens) right to publicly demonstrate.
Quote:
Yes, referring to the protesters' (i.e. citizens) right to publicly demonstrate.
So what does that have to do with Apple? (hint: nothing)
Apple cannot stop them from protesting.
Apple could have them removed from their place of business if they are on it.
Yes, I agree. They have every right to protest assuming they are not Apple's property, for example a sidewalk out front. My original post was a response to someone saying Apple should do something about it, to which I replied that the protestors had the right to do so. But please, keep busting my nuts over something we essentially agree on.