Minimum Wage & Union Wages: You Pay for them...

[Saint Peter]

Most contracts have a hold back which represents the contractor's profit. When the job is finished and approved, then the contractor is paid in full.

I am not saying all construction workers are angels. Most are far from it.

There was talk around the site about a contractor dragging his feet and being behind schedule. Everybody was pissed off because time lines were falling back.

It turned out that the contractor had put in RFIs (request for information) about some issues with the job that were never replied to.

Now, not only is the job behind, it is also fucked up because the plans were fucked up.

No reply? Do it like is shows on the print.

 

[bronzeage]

I am not saying all construction workers are angels. Most are far from it.

There was talk around the site about a contractor dragging his feet and being behind schedule. Everybody was pissed off because time lines were falling back.

It turned out that the contractor had put in RFIs (request for information) about some issues with the job that were never replied to.

Now, not only is the job behind, it is also fucked up because the plans were fucked up.

No reply? Do it like is shows on the print.

Just make sure the change orders are signed.

 

[Saint Peter]

Sparkies are all cunts anyway. Not as bad as plumbers, but still cunts.

Ironworkers top that list. Goofy Red Wings and all.

 

[HAL_9000]

Some union guys will call other members "worms" if they do anything extra or beyond the limit of the contractual obligations to please the customer.

I'm not saying they should work for free....BUT...when the customer buys union there seems to be an expectation of not just quality work, but also going to some extra lengths for customersatisfaction, within limits of course.

 

[RjThoughts]

There is a point where I could do the job myself. If the inspector signs off on it, do they really care who did the work? My non-union worker may do a better job than the union guy. The inspector should not care who did it, just what was done.

Some states required LICENSED and INSURED workers, like plumbing and electricity. Some home-owners insurance will NOT pay if the work you've done, like plumbing and electricity, breaks and causes catostrophic damages.

 

[Holly Delight]

Why did you pay?

General contractor has not paid yet. Still in negotiation.

The job is a renovation. Due to the difficulty with the staging of the different parts of the project, the electricians are needed on site several times, and some work is clearly temporary. The plans and their work orders were very specific. However the electricians apparently decided to proceed onto phase II on their own, instead of stopping with the completion of phase I. It was not a problem of doing the work to code, but a problem of following the written instructions.

No change orders on electrical. These were signed off in June.

 

[koalabear]

General contractor has not paid yet. Still in negotiation.

The job is a renovation. Due to the difficulty with the staging of the different parts of the project, the electricians are needed on site several times, and some work is clearly temporary. The plans and their work orders were very specific. However the electricians apparently decided to proceed onto phase II on their own, instead of stopping with the completion of phase I. It was not a problem of doing the work to code, but a problem of following the written instructions.

No change orders on electrical. These were signed off in June.

Sounds like a screwed up general contractor.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It does not gel at all.

Amicus and Company want to fuck the middle class and poor at every turn in the political and social process.

Funny thing is, we've been redistributing the wealth and goodness for some time now and for some time now, the "beneficiaries" of the largess are the only growing class, while the middle-class shrinks...

And the only answer we get to that conundrum from the Left is "Greed" and despite gimmicks like the AMT, the eternal growl, "the rich need to pay their 'fair' share...
__________________
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.
Frédéric Bastiat

A_J's corollary #11, “The New Age Liberal defines a fair share of taxes as, ‘When you pay your taxes, you have no more money left than anyone else has.’”

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Heaps of families end up in welfare lines even when they have minimum wage jobs. So you're saying get rid of the minimum wage and let families make $4.50 an hour instead of $7.25. What then? More welfare? Should they go to charities to feed their kids?

Explain how parents working two jobs, 60 hours per week and never being home to see their spouse and children works with the "family values" crowd. I love how Amicus MOANS about how kindergarten and day care damage kids. But kids never seeing their parents because they have to constantly work? That's okay somehow.

Typical argument by the left wing, take the general and then construct an unassailable victim argument.

So, you're in the no-family values crowd?

If $7.25 is such a grand thing, let's make it $17.25...

Since it will have zero effect on total employment and leave mom at home, barefoot, pregnant, and with a new burka...



Why not $27.25???

$50.00! There's got to be a lot of million-man multipliers associated with a $125 Big Mac...

 

[markfifa0791]

Conceptual thinking is only good

If you use it as a hypothesis which is then tested. Conceptually many things "make sense", but experience, which is represented in these situations as data (facts and figures) tells us whether our intuition is correct.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

If you use it as a hypothesis which is then tested. Conceptually many things "make sense", but experience, which is represented in these situations as data (facts and figures) tells us whether our intuition is correct.

Who are you talking to/at?

 

[markfifa0791]

No minimum wage would only be successful if people were smart enough to say no. But too many people are too dumb and would work for anything, which drags the rest of the economy down, as well as overall wealth.

 

[markfifa0791]

Just stating an opinion/thought.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The inspector could care less about union membership. If the work is up to code and done by a properly trained person, the job will get the magic initials in the proper box.

You brought up electrical work. That trade has guidelines that many trades do not. It is a bad idea to have a hack working on your electrical system. The rules and regs are in place to protect you.

Does your sheet metal worker understand when to cross brake the duct so it does not rattle? It only matters to the person with the desk under the duct that flexes when the air comes on and off. One small example of a million ways that your job can be influenced by the training the workers involved.

Tin knockers I was crawling around on top of your work inside a drop ceiling trying to put a nut on a bolt on Friday. DO you have to leave all those sharp screws sticking out?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

No minimum wage would only be successful if people were smart enough to say no. But too many people are too dumb and would work for anything, which drags the rest of the economy down, as well as overall wealth.

Minimum wage does not help them at all.

The biggest fallacies I see in this thread are two-fold, the first being that it conveniently ignores the fact that "the minimum wage" is, in effect a tax on small business (you know, the middle-class that we keep shedding alligator tears over) by another name and a hidden cost of doing business with unseen repercussions. The second, and even worse fallacy is that it is a "working" wage, when in fact, it is not, it is an introductory wage for the unskilled, untrained, and yes, maybe even the stupid. Most people quickly get raises and the jobs we demean the most tend to pay higher rates any way.

You know it's cheap partisan class warfare rhetoric when they get to lamenting about the family working six minimum wage jobs and not being able to spend any time with their *sniff* *sniff* six, seven, eighteen children and how cold and heartless must you "wingers" be to not want them to have family values TOO!!!

 

[markfifa0791]

That must've been an important nut/bolt.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's easy to come up with anecdotal evidence. Some union electricians did bad work. I connected a 25-story non-union high rise, which is now a trendy downtown hotel, and we did not plumb a single column. That building is at least a foot out of plumb or more and half of the bolts were hammered in so that the threads were destroyed. An envelope to the building inspector takes care of all that. Oh, union workers are incompetent! No wait, NON-union workers are incompetent!

 

[rosco rathbone]

That must've been an important nut/bolt.

That's contientious union work man. We could have just shot some epoxy in the hole to keep it from moving around and said fuckit, IBGYBG.

 

[markfifa0791]

Minimum wage does not help them at all.

The biggest fallacies I see in this thread are two-fold, the first being that it conveniently ignores the fact that "the minimum wage" is, in effect a tax on small business (you know, the middle-class that we keep shedding alligator tears over) by another name and a hidden cost of doing business with unseen repercussions. The second, and even worse fallacy is that it is a "working" wage, when in fact, it is not, it is an introductory wage for the unskilled, untrained, and yes, maybe even the stupid. Most people quickly get raises and the jobs we demean the most tend to pay higher rates any way.

You know it's cheap partisan class warfare rhetoric when they get to lamenting about the family working six minimum wage jobs and not being able to spend any time with their *sniff* *sniff* six, seven, eighteen children and how cold and heartless must you "wingers" be to not want them to have family values TOO!!!

How is minimum wage a tax and other wages not? For instance, as a small business owner myself, if I feel that the work someone is doing would be worth $7.25 independently of the minimum wage does that make it no longer a tax? Or once I give a raise to an employee to $8/hour perhaps?

Those lamentations are just as useful in discussions as unproven "concepts."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

How is minimum wage a tax and other wages not? For instance, as a small business owner myself, if I feel that the work someone is doing would be worth $7.25 independently of the minimum wage does that make it no longer a tax? Or once I give a raise to an employee to $8/hour perhaps?

Those lamentations are just as useful in discussions as unproven "concepts."

Because, wages are negotiated in a free market.

An imposed wage is a form of price control, in this case a floor and it leads to replacement (see Mises).

Therefore, anything you pay above what the market imposes naturally is, in effect, a tax.

If you give a worker a wage raise, I assume it is not so much that you are a nice guy, but are recognizing value in the employee and do not wish that employee to go shopping is new skills around in the job market.

Now, if you were going to hire three people at $5, but instead now have to chuck in an extra $2.25, then you might make a go of it with two employees, leaving one unemployed and making the true minimum wage $0.00...

 

[markfifa0791]

That's contientious union work man. We could have just shot some epoxy in the hole to keep it from moving around and said fuckit, IBGYBG.

I was just joking...Had a mental picture of you climbing around and getting stuck by the ends of sharp screws. But I shouldn't laugh at your pain.

 

[markfifa0791]

Because, wages are negotiated in a free market.

An imposed wage is a form of price control, in this case a floor and it leads to replacement (see Mises).

Therefore, anything you pay above what the market imposes naturally is, in effect, a tax.

If you give a worker a wage raise, I assume it is not so much that you are a nice guy, but are recognizing value in the employee and do not wish that employee to go shopping is new skills around in the job market.

Now, if you were going to hire three people at $5, but instead now have to chuck in an extra $2.25, then you might make a go of it with two employees, leaving one unemployed and making the true minimum wage $0.00...

Well, if you're going to look at it like that then the true minimum wage is still $0. I purposely did not hire for certain positions in my company even though there was a need for them because their wage would be too high, and that had nothing (or little) to do with the minimum wage.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Well, if you're going to look at it like that then the true minimum wage is still $0. I purposely did not hire for certain positions in my company even though there was a need for them because their wage would be too high, and that had nothing (or little) to do with the minimum wage.

That's how the market works.

The Minimum Wage is just another "feel-good" issue for liberals whose main economic polity is the polity of "fairness."
__________________
If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Here's a parallel.

The cost of government do-goodism...



August 7, 2011
Balusters and Bureaucrats
By David Workman

Having purchased an old house, a friend of mine, John, was informed that the house had a number of code violations. Specifically, the railing on the porch, at only twenty-one inches, fell considerably short of the city's required forty-two. This is a safety issue, he was told. Apparently, in 1901, when the house was built, children were only half the size that they are now -- or perhaps twice as aware of their surroundings. In any case, he was going to have to replace the porch railings.
So he did. He found a carpenter, who lathed out new balusters in the same style, which was expensive. John could have purchased ready-made uprights, but it was important to him to keep the porch looking as it had. It was while the balusters were being installed that the trouble started.
The trouble arrived in the form of Joyce, a representative of the Historic Preservation Society. She had noticed that the old balusters had been removed from the porch and was, she said, surprised that her office hadn't been informed. John didn't see why he should have to inform anybody that he was bringing his home up to code, and he told her so.
John isn't entirely diplomatic. One might characterize his attitude as dismissive, but since he really did want Joyce to go away, such an attitude seemed appropriate. It did not seem so to Joyce, who didn't care to be casually rebuffed in her efforts. She began to make her case.
The house, as I said, was built in 1901. Up until the year 2000, the previous owners could have done anything they wanted to it, including improving the porch to meet code requirements. But in the year 2001, the house turned 100 years old. The Historic Preservation Society took an interest, and voilà: here was Joyce, trying to exert some authority over John's property.
While Joyce recognized that the porch was not up to code, her only solution was to replace the balusters in their original style and height and add an additional railing at the prescribed level. John declined this suggestion. The carpenter, who had stopped in his work and was listening to this exchange, was informed that he should continue, and Joyce was informed that the code enforcement officer would be on site the following week to certify that the dangerous porch railing had been replaced. John invited Joyce to meet with him then, although the nature of the invitation left no room for doubt that her presence was not eagerly anticipated.
When Roger, the code enforcement officer, arrived the following Tuesday, it became clear that Joyce had been lurking nearby, for she arrived hard on his heels. She again stated her case, which John had already heard and rejected and which was of no interest to Roger whatsoever.
After measuring the height of the railing, Roger was ready to sign off on the improvements. Joyce persisted. Roger still did not care and explained that his concern was simply certifying the improvements. John then inquired as to the repercussions of ignoring the building codes. Roger informed him that a fine of $500.00 could be levied each month, and the building could be deemed uninhabitable. John then asked Joyce what the repercussions of ignoring her demands. When he was informed that she could issue only a single fine of $200.00, John wrote a check, handed it to her, and asked her to leave.
In a perfect world, this would be the end of the story. John was happy that his home was inhabitable, consistent with the code, and still exhibiting the style that he had first found attractive. Roger had done his job, which consisted of taking a couple of measurements, but which we can assume will spare untold numbers of incautious children and intoxicated adults from pitching off the porch. The carpenter earned his pay and later got a recommendation when another friend of John's was looking to have some windows fitted. Sweetness and light all about, one would guess.
But this story includes a minor-level bureaucrat who had been spurned. At the next meeting in City Hall, Joyce stood to speak to the councilors. She might have pointed out that the regulations of two city agencies were at odds, and that some clarification was in order. But she didn't. She might have suggested a review board capable of making a ruling when two different mandates conflicted. She didn't do that, either. What she desired of the City Council was the authority to fine homeowners $500.00 per month.
To Joyce, and the other one million, eight hundred thousand civil servants in America, the problem isn't that there are too many regulations, and those too contradictory, that overburden the citizen who attempts to comply. The problem is that one agency enjoys a prerogative some other agency does not -- that agencies are not equal in their ability to coerce. Since the real problem -- the reconciliation of contradictory regulations -- was never addressed, the next move is almost certainly that Roger will seek his own privilege to impose greater fines.
Though our politicians are constantly in the spotlight, it's these little exchanges that truly make all the difference. More than anything, it's these petty bureaucratic arms races that impact our daily lives, punish the citizen, degrade privacy, and erode the value of personal property.

The American Thinker

 

[markfifa0791]

That's how the market works.

The Minimum Wage is just another "feel-good" issue for liberals whose main economic polity is the polity of "fairness."
__________________
If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

But, either that is inconsistent with your point so far or I am misunderstanding your point. The minimum wage is $7.25. If I want to hire someone but do not want to pay them $7.25 for their work and decide not to higher them, the minimum wage requirement does not drop to $0.

I feel like minimum wage is most likely not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. How many jobs do you think people would go for at less than $7.25? As you've said, it's not a livable wage. So how much are we really inflating things? And what is the effect on demand by giving low wage earners a few extra dollars?