jobs with justice

[Athena]

http://www.jwj.org/ is the Jobs With Justice site. This organization works for better wages, benefits and working conditions, and you can participate by giving your business to those who provide just compensation for jobs, and not doing business with those who do not.

I will again say there are people doing care giving work for very low wages and no benefits and enduring unpleasant work conditions, such as having to work with sleep deprivation, because of not enough hours between shifts to be well rested. These people are not fighting for better wages or benefits, because they know the employer doesn't have the money and they know the people they care for really need their help. What kind of society would not compensate these people for the very necessary work they do, through a united efforted to meet human needs?

More directly my question is who should be responsible for social/economic justice? Not all employers can afford the decent wages and benefits, so they have an emplyment problem, putting a stress on the most caring people and their families. Should hold only employers responsible for economic justice knowing not all can be, or we should we as society assure economic justice to hard working and caring people? Which means taxing all the people to assure this justice?

[Chancellor]

So, in other words, it's a leftist/socialist organization that doesn't have a clue what real justice is.

[Athena]

Thank you, Homa4Mayor4NF. Thank you for being involved in a union and saying something about it. People who are opposed to working people uniting to improve their wages and working conditions, frighten me. They create such an unfriendly reality.

In 1917 teachers were proud of their education for democracy increased the organizations of people from self help organizations to unions and ranges. Songs written at this time were also very moving, and inspired a sense of brotherhood as well as ideas of love and marriage.

I don't think we would have a middle class and such a good economy if it had not be for unions, and I can't think of any reason a society would need people who do not value humanity and work to improve life for all.

[US Independent]

I agree with uniting workers to battle corporate corruption and worker abuses. Government workers however cause severe damage they cause tax raises and hikes. Subway services, hospitals... you get the picture, stop a city in their track because they want more benefits. The government allots these services so much money and organized workers take all this money. Hospitals and public transportation suffer from the greed of unionized workers.

[tman_ndsu08]

And see, the best thing about capitalism is that it allows sites and organizations like Jobs for Justice to exist.

People can have their cake and eat it too.

[Athena]

Quote by: US Independent I agree with uniting workers to battle corporate corruption and worker abuses. Government workers however cause severe damage they cause tax raises and hikes. Subway services, hospitals... you get the picture, stop a city in their track because they want more benefits. The government allots these services so much money and organized workers take all this money. Hospitals and public transportation suffer from the greed of unionized workers.

We need to ask want is greed? When homes are $400,000 and health insurance is $300 monthly per person, and cars are what? $24,000 or more plus insurance, plus the cell phones because no one is at home to parent the children, etc. just how much does a person need to earn to have a decent life?

I think something is wrong with our economic system, and trying to get people to live below a decent standard so their services are affordable, is wrong.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Athena just how much does a person need to earn to have a decent life?

What is a decent life?

[Rave7pt0]

Athena, that's the thing. Everything is expensive partially because of unions forcing wages up, thus affecting business' margins. When a margin is affected, it's passed on to the consumer, who also happens to be a worker. Over time, given higher wages, everything becomes more expensive. That's called inflation... and the solution to inflation is not raising the wage level again.

[tman_ndsu08]

A better solution would be to slash all wage rates.

Then everything would be cheaper.

[char]

I believe that we should ask ourselves, "what are mypriorities?" The greatest priorities should recieve the greatest attention. For instance, computers and technology are a convenience, whereas health care is a necessary. Which one should pay better? The one that is required or the one that makes things easier? I say the one that is required. People usually don't devote themselves to frivolities.

[Athena]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Athena, that's the thing. Everything is expensive partially because of unions forcing wages up, thus affecting business' margins. When a margin is affected, it's passed on to the consumer, who also happens to be a worker. Over time, given higher wages, everything becomes more expensive. That's called inflation... and the solution to inflation is not raising the wage level again.

I don't like this reasoning, because we could buy nice homes for only $34,000 a few years ago, and now they are over $100,000, and unions had nothing to do with this. From my point of view, the problem is not generated by workers.

[Athena]

Quote by: char I believe that we should ask ourselves, "what are mypriorities?" The greatest priorities should recieve the greatest attention. For instance, computers and technology are a convenience, whereas health care is a necessary. Which one should pay better? The one that is required or the one that makes things easier? I say the one that is required. People usually don't devote themselves to frivolities.

My priority is the children. We, as a society, are not being honest about the conditions of childhood. At one time, the rich and poor really didn't have such different lives. No one had in door plumbing or electricity, or private cars that travel faster than horses and can go much further. Just the restriction of how far a person could walk, kept people to their neighborhoods where people knew each other and if they had time for fun, they got together to have fun. Few people had much money, and they didn't even think of material things that much, but their relationships. Reality has completely changed, and our consciousness has not kept pace.

Today the child in a good nieghborhood, with all the benefits middle class people can give their children, are so much better off then the children in low income, high crime housing, with nothing to do but get into trouble. I came from a single mother home, when women did women's work for low wages, and I was 18 when I met my father who kept his second family in a protected nieghborhood, where his children were protected from the neighborhoods where I grew up. I know there is a huge difference between these economic groups. They have very different realities and niether group really understands the reality of the other. On another thread we are debating if parents should be blamed if a child commits a crime. What a terrible thing to debate when separate from social reality. As though everyone had middle class families. Or the other extreme, as old as the beginning of the US, when some founders had no intentions of giving the poor the vote! We either expect too much, or not enough of our poor, and think too little of economic and social justice.

[Athena]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 A better solution would be to slash all wage rates. Then everything would be cheaper.

No everything does not get cheaper by cutting wages, but you loose the revenue city, state and federal government needs. When a city is running out of land, the cost of land increases. When a city must compete with the whole world for resources such as wood, steel, and other building materials, it will be the world market that determines prices, not local wages. Our banking system demands growth, because charging interest is like counterfeiting money. We are operating on make believe money, and must produce enough to cover this make believe money scheme, which has gotten completely out of control!!! The cost of things is excellerating way to fast.

[RVonse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What is a decent life?

A decent life would be a normal life where you can reasonably expect to live around 72 years give or take.

That would be the case in most of Europe but it is clearly not the case for a lot of lower class U.S. citizens.

[RVonse]

Athena,
I am very pro union too and I think the biggest challange they face today is global competition. On the one hand our government encourages business here to export goods and take advantage of cheap labor costs from other countries. But on the other hand, the other countries will not allow their workers to organize. Its very very unfair to America's middle class. An international labor union would solve this problem but how do you get the Chinese government to allow the UAW in?

So this really is a political issue causing great social harm in America today.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Athena No everything does not get cheaper by cutting wages

Yes it does.

Inflation is fundamental economics.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: RVonse A decent life would be a normal life

What is a normal life?

where you can reasonably expect to live around 72 years give or take.

It's possible to live to that age with $500 a mo. or less.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: RVonse An international labor union would solve this problem but how do you get the Chinese government to allow the UAW in?

Unions would probably be good for China.


The labor sellers always have the power to organize.

But at the same time they're always in competition with themselves for labor buyers.

So it's a double edged sword.

[RVonse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What is a normal life? It's possible to live to that age with $500 a mo. or less.

A normal life is where you work 40 hours a week, afford minimal housing and subsistance and get to spend the rest of your time sleeping and doing what you want to do.

Yuu might survive to 72 on $500 a mo. but the odds would not be in your favor. Especially if you got sick.

[tman_ndsu08]

Anyone who works 40 hours a week can afford a normal life.