Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VCUBNFO t1_jad6cpi wrote

Reply to comment by DrunkonKoolAid in Richmond Public Schools principals unionize by CrassostreaVirginica

Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?

Unionization generally creates a lot of red tape for removing people for poor performance.

−34

kneel_yung t1_jadjadq wrote

> Why don't we just pay them more rather than unionize them?

Well, why don't we?

edit: *crickets*

16

RVAVandal t1_jad6v6p wrote

Sounds like you're getting your info about Unions from Fox news and the Capitalist class.

12

plummbob t1_jadbgv3 wrote

> and the Capitalist class.

​

what exactly is that

9

chairmanbrando t1_jadd7ih wrote

It's only the very thing that has been holding this country back for decades with stagnant wages while productivity and corporation profits continue to rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_conflict

3

plummbob t1_jadetov wrote

>stagnant wages

​

doesn't look flat to me

​

Besides, absent land rents, capital share of net income isn't even that great

​

class conflict is a nice theory if you need to a distant other to blame when you have actual market power from economic classes

but for locally caused problems -low public amenities, poor schools, underperforming infrastructure, high housing costs, pockets of intractable crime are all entirely RVA's locally sourced problems...and is it really the uber-rich causing the poor performance the these things?

​

​

take this bonkers of a story. kinda hard to blame jeff bezo's for unsafe streets when its the residents themselves that turned out to protest improving them

−1

gravy_boot t1_jadj2dy wrote

> doesn’t look flat to me

Is this data normalized to the cost of living, or anything else?

2

plummbob t1_jadk2rl wrote

whenever you see the word real in something like real income or real wages in a dataset like this, it means its adjusted for inflation.

−1

VCUBNFO t1_jad7um3 wrote

Sounds like you're getting your info about unions from unions.

−7

Charles_Britt t1_jad909q wrote

And everyone knows the primary source is always the least accurate information

2

VCUBNFO t1_jad97u5 wrote

The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.

Primary source, as you say.

2

OrtizDupri t1_jadavs5 wrote

> The groups that would hire union groups vs non-union groups generally prefer non-union groups to have better performance.

  • citation needed
8

Charles_Britt t1_jadc7bt wrote

From the US Department of Labor

>Labor unions improve wages and working conditions for all workers, whether they are union members or not. Unions help reduce wage gaps for women workers and workers of color. Union members have better job safety protections and better paid leave than non-union workers, and are more secure exercising their rights in the workplace.

Seems like unions do some cool shit.

4

kneel_yung t1_jadjo36 wrote

Union workers do better work because they're more experienced. Non-union tend to be younger

1

CadenVanV t1_jaf20a5 wrote

Unionization also creates a lot of red tape for removing people in general. So now employers can’t call whatever they want to “poor performance” and firing employees for their shoe color is a little less viable

1

BureauOfBureaucrats t1_jadbax4 wrote

They’re not going to get paid more without a union to represent them and fight for it.

0

kickingpplisfun t1_jaergk1 wrote

You definitely haven't actually been involved with a union if you think that, except maybe a police union. Employees need other protections than just pay, and employers rarely give out substantial raises without collective bargaining, and are also empowered to create unsafe working conditions and discriminatory environments without someone to tell them to piss off.

0