Is there any solid data which shows that national corporations provide poorer wages and benefits for the same work than do local “mom 'n pops”?
The part of Sanders’ bill which exempts companies < 500 employees would seem to endorse that assumption.
I’m not sure it isn’t a myth. But that’s based on personal family experience and anecdote, not anything with a sound data foundation.
E-verify would do it nicely and the Stephen Miller wing of the GOP wants mandatory e-verify. Workplace enforcement is also very effective at that and Jeff Sessions has greatly increased workplace enforcement, fines, and criminal enforcement against employers who hire illegal workers. All of these things do, indeed, cause a labor shortage. I, too, fully support having a labor shortage as the best way to get workers paid more and to create a more equal society.
What causes a labor glut (the opposite of a shortage) is our open southern border, something which the Stephen Miller wing of the GOP also wants to address, but which the Democrats are fighting against.
Essentially open immigration is the most powerful union-busting tool in the world and the only group that wants to stop it happens to be the most hardcore group in the GOP, and the Democrats support a labor glut because labor shortages are (conveniently) racist.
Those saying that “this will never pass”, “this is a political stunt”, this congress won’t even look at it”, “the president will just veto” and the like are missing the point. It’s about moving the f**kin’ coversation to the left.
The FAR right has controlled the dialogue for at least 30 years to the point where racist fascisim is part of the mainstream conversation. Establishment dems have no clue. The left wing of the dem party is presenting a vision of an alternative.
Additionally, with the abuse of corporate law, maybe the era of the corporation needs to end.
Yes, corporate executive compensation on average is out of step with the rest of the salaries/wages out there. (I read that Japan actually has or had a salary cap based on employee pay, but didn’t verify that yet.)
But my point further down and in further posts is that it isn’t as simple as just raising wages. Diverting executive pay may help some, but as I pointed out eve with the $14.7B in profit being diverted, it still won’t lift everyone out totally. There will have to be increases in prices to pay for the higher wages.
Again, I am not saying that Unions aren’t weaker nor that there haven’t been forces slowly working against them. It has been a tandem effort, as benefits programs have also grown through the years. They are the band aid caused by the weaker labor movement. You take off that band-aid and expose the pus and people are going to do what they did at the turn of the century - organize new labor movements.
OR they will petition the gov. to put the band aid back on. I guess that is an option too. But I have said before I’d rather see people directly paid more vs through the gov.
There’s a pretty important constituency that wants to talk to you about that, buddy.
There are kernels of truth in what you are saying, from a bald economic standpoint, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions.
If the exploitation of the desperation of immigrant workers is truly undermining labor, then the most humane and effective solution is to set fair labor policies that apply to ALL workers, including immigrants. If companies can’t underpay, refuse to pay, or abuse immigrant laborers, there is no longer a financial incentive (immigrants can still compete on their merits) to use them over domestic workers, and that particular “pull” factor on immigration dries up. Push factors of imminent death by corruption and violence in their home countries stands, but under normal conditions, we refer to these people as “refugees” rather than “illegals.”
The nature of the exploitation of desperate immigrants goes beyond underpayment, and is exacerbated when you try to close borders tighter. As immigrants are demonized and rights and protections are stripped away from them, they become vulnerable to literal wage theft, dangerous working conditions, long and inflexible hours, and lack of family accommodations. All things that benefit a corporation’s bottom line. Guess who is demonizing immigrants (and unions, for that matter) It ain’t Democrats. Numerous studies have shown that if you actually remove barriers to immigrants working and sending remittances home to their families many will often repatriate voluntarily as soon as possible. Americans aren’t the only ones with patriotism, despite what hate-mongers will try to sell you.
Nobody cares what Google or Uber supports, Democratic (and further left) voters would love to get all of that bullshit money out of politics. If you MUST speak in the black and white of open or closed borders (the former no one is actually supporting, and the latter physcially impossible) then the far more moral choice is open, which are only a problem for domestic laborers if you allow people to be exploited.
All that said, immigration flows have been stable for a while, so a big red herring in any case.
Yes, I think it actually is. I think you’re vastly underestimating just how much pricks like Bezos or the Walton family make while many of the people who work for them are forced onto the public dole.
Cut the pay of executives more.
Again, I think you’re really underestimating how much damage the propaganda campaigns against labor have done over the year, not to mention the fatal use of right to work laws that have severely under cut the ability of labor unions to make meaningful change for their members.
Check out Bethany Moreton’s book on the history of Walmart and the rise of feminized labor, and how that relates to the labor movement as well as to the driving down/stagnatio of wages for working class people:
Given how stacked against workers the US system is, why do so many seek to migrate here rather than to countries with better labor protections and more substantial safety nets?
Or a new quote: “If you can legitimately exploit government subsidies and make money, that’s a good business model.”
(Which, of course, it ought not to be.)
Because we’ve spent fucking decades destabilizing meso-American countries, through interventions and our appetite for drugs, so they can get better wages and can live relatively safer lives here than elsewhere.
From what I’ve seen here in Mexico, it’s generally a “one and done” affair. Earn enough to get the kids a good education or buy a house/fix one up (which costs nowhere near what it does in the states) , and a person is set. They just come home and relax after that. Working, but not killing themselves the way USians do.
This. In UK unemployment is falling yet wages are not increasing. Govt is pushing many people on benefits out of that category/cutting sums paid, and many are ending up “self-employed” (e.g. as in delivery drivers at best and bullshit unprofitable one-person businesses at worst) and still claiming other benefits, but Tories can claim unemployment is down because they are not active job-sekers any more. When employment increases and unemployment falls there is less labour available ( to say nothing of the EU exodus due to Brexit), yet wages stagnate in a manner they would not if there were real organised labour with muscle.
100%. If you actually invest in strengthening “sender” countries through fair trade and mutually beneficial policies, you can remove “push” factors altogether. But, of course, following the deadly irony of xenophobic policies, trying to “stop” immigrants goes hand-in-hand with having abusive and paranoid trade and security policies against the places they are from, which just increases push factors. It doesn’t even take exact economic parity, people actually want to live in their home countries.
Required Reading:
Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration
By Douglas S. Massey, Jorge Durand, Nolan J.
Living in the USA provides a much lower chance of being killed by American bombs.
Yeah, the weaponization of cost externalization by big corporate entities really infuriates me.
A rare opportunity for corporate lawyers to make a Bill of Attainder argument. Amazon’s legal shop must be delighted.
Maybe try some plausible effects? The difference in family sizes between competitors is unlikely to be more than a tiny fraction of a person, thus the affect of family size on compensation would be negligible.
This seems relevant…
No they aren’t. That’s a counterfactual fantasy. Many Amazon workers are free to leave and go on welfare, or for that matter to stay and draw welfare, but few of them are free to leave for other employment.
I drive by the Amazon fullfillment center nearly every day and see people walking to work there because they can’t afford cars. Those people don’t have any other job opportunities in walking range, only Amazon is hiring unskilled labor without cars.
The last of the factory work in this area pulled out and went to China a decade ago, because the decrease in costs of compliance with labor and environmental protection laws pays for the increased material transport costs. There are jobless homeless people all over the place.
Obviously I am talking specifically about the local area. Just south of Murdertown, USA.
Easy fix: Change the bill name from
Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies
to
Stop Bad Organizations by Zeroing Out Subsidies
EEYOOooo
