Crossing a picket line?

[Pangloss]

Sure' date=' but sometimes that is just not a feasible option. For example, what if we were back in the 20's, and you were blacklisted. It's not like you can just walk into another factory and get another job.

[/quote']

 

I conceed the point.

 

I could make an argument about changing careers, but I think that's a reasonable compromise on the part of the capitalist ideal for the greater public good.

 

I'm not sure that's the case here, though, in the NYU case. I'd need to hear that argument in specific.

 

Returning to the more general capitalism-versus-socialism debate that we're having:

 

Value of work is not quantifiable. Both employee and employer negotiate on the worth of your work.

 

Both employee and employer set a value on the worth of their work. When they agree, or compromise to reach an agreement, then a relationship can be established. When they disagree, or cannot come to agreement, they do not establish a relationship.

 

 

To me, it sounds like your saying that an employee is allowed to say how much an employee is worth, but an employee is not allowed to say how much he thinks himself to be worth. So, an employer, who generally doesn't hold the financial interests of the employee close to his heart is allowed to say how much he thinks the employee needs to live., but the actual employee is the only one who could know such a thiing.

 

That's just the opposite that I'm saying. I believe that an employee gets to declare his worth by refusing to accept the worth assigned to him by the state or an employer. It's not my employer's job to hold my welfare close to his heart. It's MINE. THAT's freedom. Not the other way 'round.

 

To me, it sounds like you believe that employers are masters, a higher class of individual, endowed with a certain moral obligation to behave in a responsible manner in the discharge of their duties. Employees are servents to the master class of employers, and the state protects them and empowers them to fight against the improperly exersized power of the master employer class. In other words, to me it sounds like you don't believe that employers are empowered with the same rights as non-employers.

 

Let me tell you what I believe. And, by the way, I believe this to be immediately apparent, not something that has to be analyzed and discovered. I believe that everyone is the same. That everyone was born with the same freedoms, which cannot be abbrogated by a state without just cause. I believe that in order to guarantee those rights, we created a government based on that principle, and that it gains its powers from the agreement amongst its members that this simple truth is not only glaringly obvious, but the only possible conclusion that any sane human being can make.

 

Or, put another way:

 

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

Whether it is the inferiority of racial segregation or the superiority of money makes no difference in the end. All men are equal. All rights are the same. And everyone gets them. How Bill Gates decides to spend his money is no different from whether a black woman has to give up her seat for a white man. It is the same thing.

 

 

How can anybody say something like the above, and still look themself in the mirror?

 

come on, Pangloss. There is no need for petty insults. We're all adults here.

 

I phrased that specifically to try and avoid directing any insult towards you while still making what I believe is a central point in my argument: How can someone who believes that their worth is determined for them by another human being look in the mirror and have any respect for what they see?

 

This point has nothing to do with you and me, and the interesting and enlightening debate that we're having. Please don't take it that way.

[Mokele]

Jobs are not a right.

 

I've never liked that phrase, and I don't think it's accurate.

 

You'd agree I have a right to live, correct? Well, in order to live, I need certain things, such as food and water. Given the lamentable state of the human body, I also need things such as shelter, clothing when cold, and a location to retreat to for sleep and such. All of those things cost money (except for the most determined primitivist), and the only way to get money is via a job.

 

Now, I'll be the first to admit that "rights" do not actually exist, and are merely a social contract of sorts. But what I'm saying is that the social contract is self-contradictory if it claims that you have a right to life, but that you don't hve a right to what you need to sustain that life.

 

the employers didn't grow it on a farm. They earned it, and as with any ordinary citizen they have a right to spend it as they see fit.

 

And like any ordinary citizen, they have moral obligations about how they spend it. Just as it is neglectful for an ordinary citizen to buy a dog they cannot afford to feed, it is neglectful for a company to require the full-time commitment of an employee they cannot afford to pay enough to live.

 

Granted the "employer" in this scenario may be a government entity, but I'm not sure I see why a different standard should be applied. Again, nobody is forcing anybody to go to this school or take these TA positions. They're human beings. Why are they acting like slaves?

 

You're missing my point, I think. There's more demand for the jobs than there are jobs availible. As a result, this means the employers can, under a totally free-market system, get away with treating their employees like shit, because anyone leaving in protest will immediately be replaced.

 

Just because the employers can get away with it because of market forces dos not mean they should be allowed to.

 

What you want or don't want is beside the point, if your goal is to get paid for what you do. Of course, if your goal is purely the furtherment of knowledge, and you don't care about money (and more power to you if it is), then it certainly doesn't matter where the demand is. But don't complain about not making enough money at it. You make your own choices in life.

 

The problem is that it is impossible not to care *at all* about money; I still need to eat, after all, and I think the administration would frown on "a novel method of ensuring total classroom participation via threat of cannibalism".

 

The point isn't so much that I should be able to do whatever I want and still be paid. It's that if I take a full-time position, *any* full-time position (with the simplifying assumption that it precludes other work), I have a reasonable expectation that I will be given enough to live off.

 

You're not asking us to convert finger painters to corporate accountants. You're demanding that we underwrite finger painters that nobody wants to hire.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that if there is only enough demand for fingerpainters to hire 10 with a living wage, we should not hire twenty and give each half of what they need to live while expecting the same level of work.

 

I've got no problem laying off those 10 fingerpainters that we can't afford, or denying work to the countless other fingerpainters. I have a problem with expecting full-time (and more) commitment from the fingerpainters without giving them enough to live off, and I have a problem with taking advantage of the desperation of the fingerpainters in order to get them to take said jobs.

 

That doesn't mean I'll let myself be run over by unscrupulous bean-counters, of course. If they don't want to pay me what I think I'm worth, I'll shop my skill around. If NOBODY wants to pay me what I think I'm worth, I'll either change tracks, or settle for less. This is all part of the basic set of assumptions I accepted when I made my choices.

 

Where's the problem?

 

The problem is when *nobody* will pay you what you even need to live. Yes, you can change careers, but that just means some other poor sod will wind up in the same position until *they* get sick of it. The company is, in effect, treating you as a disposable resource rather than a human being.

 

An excellen real-life analogy: EA Sports. You've probably heard of thm if you've ever even glanced at sports-focused computer games. Well, EA Sports basically treat their employees about 3 degrees better than Ghengis Khan treated just about everybody. 80 hours weeks are the norm (no overtime), working through vacations, denial of time off that was previously allowed (including for things like the birth of an employee's child), and "crunch times" of over 120 hours a week. The pay is crap, no overtime because it's all salaried, no benefits worth speaking of.

 

Why? Because *everyone* wants to write computer games for a living, and for every employee who finally gets fed up and leaves (to face months or years of unemployment due to high competition in the computer industry), there's ten more naive applicants dying for a chance.

 

Whether the employees can leave or not, or switch careers, isn't the question. The question is "Is it moral and socially acceptable to let a company treat it's employees so abysmally just because market forces allow them to do so"?

 

It comes back to the dog example. When you buy a dog, you have a *moral obligation* to spend he money it takes to feed and care for this animal (a position which is written into law in the case of animal cruelty). But if you have an employee who is totally financially dependent upon you, how is it that you don't have a moral obligation to provide adequately for them?

 

This is where you need to focus, by the way. I'm all for this argument -- appeal to me, the taxpayer, on the merits of investing my hard-earned money in an area that has little industry demand at the moment. Convince me why it's worth it.

 

Well, indirectly, we do that already. It's accepted and convinced that scientific research not palatable or profitable enough for companies should recieve money, so the NSF gets funding. Then people like you and I write gran proposals saying why this expansion of knowledge is worth it, and it gets decided by a panel of experts in the field. While the individual cannot decide the merits of most such work (how many people on the street know anything about th comparative morphology of snake musculature?), we provide indirect expert representation to ensure that the money goes to real science rather than, well, perpetual motion machines.

 

What are you doing to change it? I mean, besides demanding that other people change it with their resources which you're going to take from them by force?

 

One should not have to resort to force to get an employer to live up to their moral obligation.

 

But you're wrong to say "they couldn't quit because they had too few other options". That's just nonsense. Not in our society.

 

But that *was* true in our society during the great depression, and it's true of th *academic* options availible to grad students. They do have non-academic options, but those are often a last resort and tantamount to giving up.

 

The point, as before, is that an employer is making use of the desperation of potential and current employees to get away with shirking their moral duty.

 

What constitutes a "living wage"? We have 45 million people living below the poverty line in this country, but what does that actually mean? It means (on average) that they have two cars, a VCR and a DVD player, a big TV with cable, they own their own home, they work and are self-sufficient! Isn't that a "living wage"? Aren't you really saying "employers have a moral obligation to pay every employee enough to buy a BMW and living an an expensive house in an upscale neighborhood"? Isn't that what you REALLY mean?

 

Not even remotely. I mean enough money to either afford a studio apartment close to campus or an apartment farther away plus bus fare, as well as enough money for clothes, non-ramen food, heat, and water. And yes, there *are* places where grad students cannot afford these on the stipends given.

 

Additionally, I'm skepetical of your description of the standard lifestyle of the poor. Link?

 

Yes there are. And the correct response to such a situation is to QUIT!

 

Is the appropriate social response to a serial killer to just give everyone lessons in running away, or to actually have the cops catch and stop him.

 

Quitting solves the problem for *you*, but what about *other* people who'll be brought in to replace you? All you do is create an endlss cycle of people being hired, abued, and quitting in disgust.

 

Is that what our economy has become? How to suck the life out of people and discard them like used coke cans?

 

You know what the result of enforcing that would be, right? Fewer TAs so that the ones they can afford get paid what you think they should get paid. Either that or more money taken from my pocket.

 

I actually suggested fewer TAs as a solution, both in this post and prior ones.

 

And it doesn't necessarily have to come out of your pocket. Shit, at my school we have a big football team (which is a waste of money anyway, IMHO, but that's beside the point), and thus a big stadium, in which we leave the goddamn lights on all day and night. And these are *huge* bloody lights; you can *hear* the hum of high voltage as you walk past the poles they're on, an you can see the glow for *miles*. Turn the damn things off and they could pay 20 TAs a good stipend, I'd guess.

 

As I indicated above, I'm open to the suggestion that more, higher-paid TAs is a good investment. Show me why.

 

Because disgruntled employees do things like strike.

 

Why would anybody see it as a BAD thing that a TA had to work hard to achieve their goals?

 

Nobody's complaining about the level of work. I *happily* put in 50-60 hour weeks every week. What's being complained about is the lack of pay and the employer' refusal to treat the employee with the same respect as the law mandates you treat a dog with.

 

It's not my employer's job to hold my welfare close to his heart. It's MINE. THAT's freedom. Not the other way 'round.

 

Even if it's not the employer's job, does that mean they shouldn't be expected to? My job isn't a policeman, but I should be expected to intervene or call for help if I see a mugging. A certain level of common decent treatment of your fellow is necessary to the operation of any society.

 

To me, it sounds like you believe that employers are masters, a higher class of individual, endowed with a certain moral obligation to behave in a responsible manner in the discharge of their duties. Employees are servents to the master class of employers, and the state protects them and empowers them to fight against the improperly exersized power of the master employer class.

 

It's not classes of individual, but rather how much power the individual has accumulated through various means. A human is still a human, but a 120 lb weakling can still be trambled by a 300-lb bully, due to intra-specific discrepancies of power. There are numerous methods of dealing with the situation. They can all agree not to bully, but that's merely at the whim of the powerful, who can revoke that at any time. The weaker can buy guns and solve it that way, but that's generally not acceptable in civilized socieity. Or the weaker can just group together and mob the big guy, pirhana-style.

 

Whether it is the inferiority of racial segregation or the superiority of money makes no difference in the end. All men are equal. All rights are the same. And everyone gets them.

 

No, they don't. Rights do not exist unless they are fought for. Treating employees decently is a right that was fought for by labor unions who united against the robber barons. Treating races equally is a right that was fought for by the civil rights movement. Rights only are extended if you have the physical, financial or political power to seize them.

 

The above should also be self-evident. When was the last time some group was given rights just because it was "the good and proper thing to do", rather than being given rights when they had enough political power to force the issue?

 

How can someone who believes that their worth is assigned to them by another look in the mirror and have any respect for what they see?

 

Depends on if you equate financial worth with self worth. I don't. I do see what salary I can ask as dependent on market forces (yay for the Baby Boomer retirement and the resultant staff shortage!), but I don't really care about my salary as part of my self esteem. I'll willingly go to my HS reunion, face the guy who made 50 million and say "so what, I discovered something completely new to science" and consider that a decisive win.

 

This point has nothing to do with you and me, and the interesting and enlightening debate that we're having. Please don't take it that way.

 

In fact, I'd like to note that I'm posting under the influence of a fictional character I'm writing, who happens to be socialist. It's actually interesting, and forcing me to take a different look at things. Fortunately for y'all, I don't have an army of werewolves at my disposal to "argue my point", as she does.

 

Mokele

[cosine]

I conceed the point.

 

I could make an argument about changing careers' date=' but I think that's a reasonable compromise on the part of the capitalist ideal for the greater public good.

 

I'm not sure that's the case here, though, in the NYU case. I'd need to hear that argument in specific.

 

Returning to the more general capitalism-versus-socialism debate that we're having:

[/quote']

 

Unionization is not socialism, its capitalism in practice.

[Pangloss]

Unionization is not socialism, its capitalism in practice.

 

Nonsense. It's politics at the point of a gun.

 

 

I've never liked that phrase' date=' and I don't think it's accurate.

 

You'd agree I have a right to live, correct? Well, in order to live, I need certain things, such as food and water. Given the lamentable state of the human body, I also need things such as shelter, clothing when cold, and a location to retreat to for sleep and such. All of those things cost money (except for the most determined primitivist), and the only way to get money is via a job.

 

Now, I'll be the first to admit that "rights" do not actually exist, and are merely a social contract of sorts. But what I'm saying is that the social contract is self-contradictory if it claims that you have a right to life, but that you don't hve a right to what you need to sustain that life.[/quote']

 

You have a right to live. What you don't have is the right to take the things you "need" to live from someone else by force.

 

If you believe that one person's right to live trumps another person's right to hold money, then regardless of what arbitrary amount you set as "too much money", what you've said is that some people are more free than others. You no longer believe that it is self-evident that all men are created equal. What you now believe is that some men are different from others. The difference in this case is money.

 

Therefore the Declaration of Independence is completely meaningless. Because if it fails to apply to a single person, then it fails to apply to any of us. What we do to one, we do to all.

 

What you want to do is take something from one person and give it to someone else. No matter how much you couch it in "needs" (because as you point out in the third paragraph, it's really "needs" you're talking about there, not "rights"), you can't fully obscure that basic, underlying fact.

 

But let's be specific. I'd like you to point out anyone who lives in the US that doesn't have access to food, water and shelter (regardless of the quality of those things, mind you). While it may not be in the constitution or the declaration of independence, we've decided as a society that it's no longer acceptable to trumpet capitalist freedoms to the point where our people die in the streets. So we make that sacrifice, spending a portion of the common good for the greater good of survival of our fellow Americans who may be down on their luck. (Some objectivist I am, talking about safety nets!)

 

In fact we don't know of any such people. We have no statistics. There may be some. We simply don't know. The "millions of Americans who live below the poverty line" figure from the Census Bureau is actually, as we've discussed here before, a collection of people who on average have *all* of those things you mentioned.

 

So where's the problem? Don't we *already* have sufficient point-of-a-gun derived safety nets? Who's starving? Who is failing to receive medical care? Who is failing to acquire a car and a job and a house? Where are these people? The Census Bureau sure hasn't heard of 'em!

 

 

And like any ordinary citizen, they have moral obligations about how they spend it. Just as it is neglectful for an ordinary citizen to buy a dog they cannot afford to feed, it is neglectful for a company to require the full-time commitment of an employee they cannot afford to pay enough to live.

 

Whoa! Do you see what you just did? You just compared people who have no money, who live from paycheck to paycheck, who are always the employed and not the employing... to dogs!

 

Okay, I can see that you know they're actually people, but you view them as second class citizens, incapable of defending or promoting themselves. In your view, society has to take care of them. And here's the key: Society has to take care of them (again in your view) not because they are starving in the streets, and unable to get food, water or shelter (because as I established above, that's not happening), but because they are inferior to the ones who have money!

 

 

You're missing my point, I think. There's more demand for the jobs than there are jobs availible. As a result, this means the employers can, under a totally free-market system, get away with treating their employees like shit, because anyone leaving in protest will immediately be replaced.

 

No they can't. That's certainly not the case right now, for example. You've got fast food restaurants offering cash signing bonuses, for crying out loud! ABC News ran a story the other day saying that this is very much an employee's job market, from top to bottom, in every sector. And the same thing was true during much of the Clinton bubble as well.

 

 

Just because the employers can get away with it because of market forces dos not mean they should be allowed to.

 

Sure, I agree with that statement, in so far as it goes. I believe in quality control (such as the FDA). I believe in helping hands and safety nets, as discussed above. I'm comfortable with temporary unemployment compensation. All of those things can be viewed as investments. This was what Ayn Rand never quite understood.

 

Anyway, I'm getting digressive as I get tired. I'd better wrap this up.

 

 

An excellen real-life analogy: EA Sports. You've probably heard of thm if you've ever even glanced at sports-focused computer games. Well, EA Sports basically treat their employees about 3 degrees better than Ghengis Khan treated just about everybody. 80 hours weeks are the norm (no overtime), working through vacations, denial of time off that was previously allowed (including for things like the birth of an employee's child), and "crunch times" of over 120 hours a week. The pay is crap, no overtime because it's all salaried, no benefits worth speaking of.

 

I'm actually really familiar with that situation, knowing several people who worked there, as it so happens. It's a bit of a long story but just to cut to the chase, I remember chastising my friends about staying in that industry and having them tell me "yeah I know, but I love making games".

 

Well okay, but you're the one capitulating, putting yourself into their arena. So don't be surprised when they treat you like scum again.

 

It's a free country. If you don't like what's happening to you, change your situation.

 

 

Additionally, I'm skepetical of your description of the standard lifestyle of the poor. Link?

 

We discussed it here previously on the boards and there are some threads on it. Remember when we talked about the census and the poverty line, recently? I'm sure you participated. It's the one where I kept harping on the fact that they all had two cars, owned a house, got health care from the state (indigent), owned a DVD player and a TV, etc etc etc. I kept lamenting the fact that we had NO statistics on the ACTUAL poor in our society, but a damn fine number on the folks who owned all of those things! See my sig for an additional clue. (If you still don't remember I'll look it up tomorrow.)

[ecoli]

You have a right to live. What you don't have is the right to take the things you "need" to live from someone else by force.

 

If you believe that one person's right to live trumps another person's right to hold money' date=' then regardless of what arbitrary amount you set as "too much money", what you've said is that some people are more free than others. You no longer believe that it is self-evident that all men are created equal. What you now believe is that some men are different from others. The difference in this case is money. [/quote']

 

I think you're missing Mokele's point. In our society, you have the right to live. But, survival requires money. If you work for your money, then you should make enough money to be able to survive (as long as the amount of work your doing deserves this much money).

 

This is not taking money "by force" from your employer. Its getting your fair share from the amount of effort you put in. If your employer's desire to hold money outweighs the employees right to live, as it seems you are suggesting, then the employee has no right to hire that worker in the first place.

 

And about the EA situation, just because their employees foolishly entered a field where the job oppurtunities are scarce, doen't give them the right to mistreat there workers. Market forces, as Mokele has stated, doesn't trump the company the right to pay an unlivable wage, or a wage unworthy of an employee's work effort.

[Pangloss]

And my position is that if survival requires money, then those essentials needed for survival are already sufficiently provided by society.

 

Regarding EA, the employees weren't being mistreated, they were given the option of working for the company. They also had the option not to do so. Proof positive: I wouldn't have put up with it for a split second. And I'd have turned out just fine.

 

Now if they actually had unsafe conditions, like a hazaard that the employees didn't know about, that would be different. Or if they broke employment laws in some way, you might have a point there.

 

We're rapidly approaching the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. But I respect your opinion on it.

[cosine]

Nonsense. It's politics at the point of a gun.

Not nonsense. Because did unions arise out of politics at the point of a gun, or did they arise in a capitalist system? The latter.

 

Capitalism is an economic theory, just like socialism, and just as socialism sounds really nice on paper, capitalism sounds really nice on paper. But pure capitalism would not work just like pure socialism would not work, because it is not an accurate reflection of how society works. Any problem that can be pointed out in socialism has an equal counterpoint of equal weight in capitalism. Unions are a patch to correct some of these holes in capitalism theory.

[Pangloss]

Oh I think we've already established our relative positions, cosine.

 

If you're not going to refute specifics, then we're just knocking opinions back and forth, so there's not much room for debate.

[Pangloss]

My wife is an accountant for a small manufacturing business. They're in an economically depressed part of town. The company my wife works for is owned by her family, and operated by her two brothers.

 

She brings home stories. Oh, does she bring home stories! Remind me to post her basic math skills test some time.

 

Anyway, here's a situation that came up recently. She mentioned it tonight when I mentioned to her over dinner the interesting discussion that we've been having about capitalism versus socialism in this thread.

 

She had an employee who worked for her in the accounting department a while back, and after she'd been there for a couple of months she came to my wife one day and asked for a raise far in excess of what an employee might normally receive after a year of employment. This employee had a history of making costly mistakes, tardiness, and difficulty working with others. My wife denied her the raise, and a few days later she departed, presumably for greener pastures.

 

One of the things my wife found interesting about the encounter is that the person in question actually believed that she *deserved* the raise. When she didn't get it, she couldn't understand why not. Mind you, this was the accounting department, where mistakes can cost serious money. My wife is no taskmaster -- she has no problem with people making mistakes. It's when they don't admit their errors, correct them, and seek to not make them again that she has a problem. This girl just could never figure out why that was important.

 

The thing that's so frightening to me is how frequently my wife brings home stories like this.

 

People aren't interested in earning their way anymore. They want it handed to them on a silver platter. They toss around phrases like "living wage" and "fairness from employers to employees", but what they really mean is "you have it, give it to me."

[cosine]

My wife is an accountant for a small manufacturing business. They're in an economically depressed part of town. The company my wife works for is owned by her family' date=' and operated by her two brothers.

 

She brings home stories. Oh, does she bring home stories! Remind me to post her basic math skills test some time.

 

Anyway, here's a situation that came up recently. She mentioned it tonight when I mentioned to her over dinner the interesting discussion that we've been having about capitalism versus socialism in this thread.

 

She had an employee who worked for her in the accounting department a while back, and after she'd been there for a couple of months she came to my wife one day and asked for a raise far in excess of what an employee might normally receive after a year of employment. This employee had a history of making costly mistakes, tardiness, and difficulty working with others. My wife denied her the raise, and a few days later she departed, presumably for greener pastures.

 

One of the things my wife found interesting about the encounter is that the person in question actually believed that she *deserved* the raise. When she didn't get it, she couldn't understand why not. Mind you, this was the accounting department, where mistakes can cost serious money. My wife is no taskmaster -- she has no problem with people making mistakes. It's when they [i']don't admit their errors, correct them, and seek to not make them again[/i] that she has a problem. This girl just could never figure out why that was important.

 

The thing that's so frightening to me is how frequently my wife brings home stories like this.

 

People aren't interested in earning their way anymore. They want it handed to them on a silver platter. They toss around phrases like "living wage" and "fairness from employers to employees", but what they really mean is "you have it, give it to me."

What does this story have to do with the unionization of NYU GAs? Where does this story support a point? Unless its when you say "People aren't interested in earning their way anymore." However your story still does not even provide a piece of evidence towards that unrelated point.

[ecoli]

People aren't interested in earning their way anymore. They want it handed to them on a silver platter. They toss around phrases like "living wage" and "fairness from employers to employees", but what they really mean is "you have it, give it to me."

 

Of course, in such a situation as your wife's I wouldn't say that the employee should get a raise. Even if the employee needed a raise to survive, I would still expect them to work harder for it.

 

I understand the problem you see with the system. People are, generally lazy today. I guess my problem is that I'm still seeing unions and worker relations like they were in the 20's, where the workers got paid in pennies and worked +16 hour days.

 

I would say that there is a problem with the employee ethic these days, but that the hard workers shouldn't get penalized, or stereotyped due to other's lazyiness, or misinformation about themselves.

 

Right now, I'm working at a lab at my university. I'm only a freshman, so I don't even bother asking if I can get paid. I'm getting experiance, so I'm expecting that it'll pay off in the long run. I consider myself a hard worker, and I try my best... I forgot what my point was in bringing this up, but I'm sure I had one.

[Pangloss]

What does this story have to do with the unionization of NYU GAs? Where does this story support a point? Unless its when you say "People aren't interested in earning their way anymore." However your story still does not even provide a piece of evidence towards that unrelated point.

 

It supports it. The finger-painting GAs don't want to recognize the fact that their CHOSEN profession fails to bring in as much income to the university as that of engineers or applied sciences or whatever it was that the GAs were making more money at. They want to be paid the same, in spite of the fact that what they do is not as valuable.

 

Obviously the situation is a little differen here, since the GAs presumably do their jobs without errors, tardiness, and so forth (I'll just assume there's a way to fire them if they don't). But the underlying premise is the same. It doesn't matter what they do, or how much money what they do brings in. You want them paid a "living wage".

 

I will admit that in the case of GAs, the amount of money we're talking about is hardly an example of living high on the hog. That's my complaint about the issue as applied to the general workforce, but here the situation is different, and that's one of the reasons I'm keeping an open mind about it.

 

But that was just one of several arguments I've made against it.

 

Anyway, don't be so nitpicky. It's a long and fully involved thread covering multiple subjects, and nobody had a problem with it when I widened the subject earlier, so I'm going to hold you to that tacit agreement now.

[cosine]

Of course' date=' in such a situation as your wife's I wouldn't say that the employee should get a raise. Even if the employee needed a raise to survive, I would still expect them to work harder for it.

 

I understand the problem you see with the system. People are, generally lazy today. I guess my problem is that I'm still seeing unions and worker relations like they were in the 20's, where the workers got paid in pennies and worked +16 hour days.

 

I would say that there is a problem with the employee ethic these days, but that the hard workers shouldn't get penalized, or stereotyped due to other's lazyiness, or misinformation about themselves.

 

Right now, I'm working at a lab at my university. I'm only a freshman, so I don't even bother asking if I can get paid. I'm getting experiance, so I'm expecting that it'll pay off in the long run. I consider myself a hard worker, and I try my best... I forgot what my point was in bringing this up, but I'm sure I had one. [/quote']

 

 

I didn't really see pangloss's anecdote as relating to the GSOC strike at all, unless he is claiming that they are lazy and doing there jobs wrong. Especially since the GSOC isn't even looking for a raise, but a continuation of the status quo.

 

The debate on campus is not about the salary values of GAs. Both sides have admitted that the salary levels 4 years ago were devastating. The NYU administration has publicly declared a promise to raise the stipends 1000 USD a year over the next three years. However they have cut back on health care and without a contract there would be no venue for graduates to handle their greivences. The arguement is not that the GA situation is lamentable, all sides acknowledge that. The arguement is about the best way to solve it. And as we are speaking there has been an interesting break through in the discussion in literally the past 2-7 hours, and I will bring an update once both sides have come in on it.

[Pangloss]

Of course' date=' in such a situation as your wife's I wouldn't say that the employee should get a raise. Even if the employee needed a raise to survive, I would still expect them to work harder for it.

 

I understand the problem you see with the system. People are, generally lazy today. I guess my problem is that I'm still seeing unions and worker relations like they were in the 20's, where the workers got paid in pennies and worked +16 hour days.

 

I would say that there is a problem with the employee ethic these days, but that the hard workers shouldn't get penalized, or stereotyped due to other's lazyiness, or misinformation about themselves.

 

Right now, I'm working at a lab at my university. I'm only a freshman, so I don't even bother asking if I can get paid. I'm getting experiance, so I'm expecting that it'll pay off in the long run. I consider myself a hard worker, and I try my best... I forgot what my point was in bringing this up, but I'm sure I had one. [/quote']

 

 

Well I think we're approaching concensus, then. I'd go along with that post, including the concept of unions having value at an earlier time (I've defended them in this forum before, in spite of my cheap shot about the point of a gun above, which I can just attribute to being really tired at the moment). I hope I've made it clear that I'm not an unabashed capitalist or Ayn Rand greed-is-good type. I'm generally okay with most employee protection laws, for example.

 

Anyway, I've got to hit the sack, but I'll drop by tomorrow some time. It's finals week and I really shouldn't even be on. (grin) But I have enjoyed the discussion quite a bit, and it made a nice break from my studies.

[cosine]

It supports it. The finger-painting GAs don't want to recognize the fact that their CHOSEN profession fails to bring in as much income to the university as that of engineers or applied sciences or whatever it was that the GAs were making more money at. They want to be paid the same' date=' in spite of the fact that [i']what they do is not as valuable[/i].

 

Obviously the situation is a little differen here, since the GAs presumably do their jobs without errors, tardiness, and so forth (I'll just assume there's a way to fire them if they don't). But the underlying premise is the same. It doesn't matter what they do, or how much money what they do brings in. You want them paid a "living wage".

 

I will admit that in the case of GAs, the amount of money we're talking about is hardly an example of living high on the hog. That's my complaint about the issue as applied to the general workforce, but here the situation is different, and that's one of the reasons I'm keeping an open mind about it.

 

But that was just one of several arguments I've made against it.

 

Anyway, don't be so nitpicky. It's a long and fully involved thread covering multiple subjects, and nobody had a problem with it when I widened the subject earlier, so I'm going to hold you to that tacit agreement now.

There is no agreement.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=229944&postcount=28

 

And as to the rest of this post, we've been skippin steps in our simulatneuous postings, but to reiterate,

this addresses most of post #39: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=229968&postcount=38

[Pangloss]

Er, that post confirms the tacit agreement that nobody minded my changing the subject. (I.E. I changed the subject and you went along with it, as demonstrated by that post of yours.)

 

I'm not going to argue over whether it was a valid post, that's just silly. It was a one-off side comment. We've already moved on. Get over it.

[Mokele]

I don't have time for a proper reply (I'm supposed to be working), but I'll just toss something out both to keep things rolling and so that when I come back there'll be new posts and I won't forget the thread exists.

 

You mention how safety nets provide the necessities for life, and I agree. But the problem is that you're no longer eligable for the safety net once you start working, as it's presumed that employers will give you a decent living wage. If this isn't the case, then there's no impetus to ever lift one's self out of that safety net, is there?

 

There's a lot more, mostly in that I think there are several fallacies going on here, especially with this "inherently equal" stuiff. But I'm supposed to be working now.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Well that's some pretty obvious circular reasoning. But here's how you break that cycle: The impetus to life one's self out of the safety net is that it's the only way to really get ahead. If you start passing out BMWs to fast food workers just because it equates them with mortgage brokers then you've REALLY lost all incentive for anyone to become a mortgage brokers. (And you can't say "I'm not suggesting BMWs" unless you refute my point about the Census Bureau and the 45 million Americans living "under the poverty line" who actually own homes, have medical care, own two cars, a DVD player, etc etc etc.)

 

Also, you've misrepresented "safety nets". They're temporary anyway, so you can't just live off them indefinitely, at least at the federal level (I'm told that's not true in all areas of the country, and many people in New Orleans were living off the dole, but I haven't really seen anything definitive on this).

 

Anyway, that's why they call them "safety nets". Unemployment compensation being the typical example. In Florida that's six months, with a six month extention you can apply for. That's it.

[cosine]

Er' date=' that post confirms the tacit agreement that nobody minded my changing the subject. (I.E. I changed the subject and you went along with it, as demonstrated by that post of yours.)

 

I'm not going to argue over whether it was a valid post, that's just silly. It was a one-off side comment. We've already moved on. Get over it.[/quote']

That post? This post? Which post?

 

And what are you talking about, what is a one-off side comment? Are you saying that this thread is not about NYU GAs trying to have their union recognized? Are you calling that an "off-side" comment? Because if you are, then you are purposely ignoring real events in the world in order to rant about your own views about how money should work. Get over it.

[Pangloss]

Cosine, I'm sorry that you're having trouble following a linear threaded discussion, but that's hardly my fault, and nobody else seems to have had a problem with the story that I told.

 

And I think it's downright disengenuous of you to suggest that I'm ignoring the NYU subject, since I've actually posted several messages in this thread that addressed the issue directly. It's also factually incorrect to say that someone who makes a side comment is "ignoring real events in order to rant". We're having a conversation here, not a formal debate.

 

But most of all, it's dishonest and disrespectful. So further posts along those lines will be removed.

[Mokele]

It might be a good idea to split this thread, in order to discuss the specifics of the NYU situation in one thread and the general socialism/capitalism debate going on in another one.

 

And I will get back to it, I promise. I'm just *super* busy right now. Pangloss, please bother me via PM if I haven't gotten back to this thread in about a week.

 

Mokele, getting ready to pull the rest of a 12 hour workday for the 4th day in a row.