I’m not sure why you think union-bashers are responsible for employers having some “upper hand”.
Union bashing only works if workers agree that the unions suck. And that is a problem caused by the unions looking out for their own existance, and spending all their money on political conquests, rather than working to actually help workers.
Meanwhile, workers are much more hurt by all the things that happen because unions get democrats elected.
I work three jobs, none of them union. One is my full-time employment, I am paid what I am worth, few people could step in and do what I do, both because I am very good at it with years of experience, and because I’m intimately familiar with the products we produce, and spend time and effort keeping it that way.
But if they could hire some out-of-work college dropout to do my job, that is exactly what the company should do. Companies are not welfare states. Of course, the consumer wins if the products are cheaper, except if the consumer loses their job because of cheap labor, they can’t afford the cheaper products.
My second job is a $10-an-hour part-time job I have one month a year, as a haunt monster at a theme park. They can’t fill all the positions at that price, but my guess is they don’t think the problem with hiring is the salary. It is a weird job, and physically demanding. In california, applicants line up ahead of time for the chance at getting auditions for this kind of job, but here in the east, even with unemployment high among young people, it just isn’t the job people are clamoring for.
For me that’s just a really fun job, and I can afford the time for one month a year.
My 3rd job is a freelance writer, and I get paid peanuts, more or less depending on how long it takes me to write 750 words. I’m losing that job because the paper is going out of business. But I am not aware that anybody was clamoring to take my job.
I think it because that's what's been happening. Since the time unions started losing membership and power, the 1970s, the gap between wages and productivity has been steadily increasing whereas before wages and productivity moved pretty much in tandem. I'm not naive enough to think that's the only reason for the widening wage/productivity gap but I do believe it is a major one. After all when employers can keep workers disorganized it is much easier for them to keep wages artificially low along with not implementing other workplace enhancing items.
Union bashing only works if workers agree that the unions suck. And that is a problem caused by the unions looking out for their own existance, and spending all their money on political conquests, rather than working to actually help workers.
Meanwhile, workers are much more hurt by all the things that happen because unions get democrats elected.
Well, I won't argue that the Democrats have been great for workers, but they are a whole lot better towards workers than the current Republican party.
But if they could hire some out-of-work college dropout to do my job, that is exactly what the company should do. Companies are not welfare states. Of course, the consumer wins if the products are cheaper, except if the consumer loses their job because of cheap labor, they can’t afford the cheaper products.
Companies have by and large forgotten Henry Ford's old maxim. We are a consumer driven economy and the more companies withhold wage increases for their employees, i.e. consumers, than consumers will have less disposable income to spend on the company's products thus making management think that wages have to be slashed even more.
Do you want to see the economy recover quickly? Make companies put some of the trillions in cash they are hoarding into circulation.
My second job is a $10-an-hour part-time job I have one month a year, as a haunt monster at a theme park. They can’t fill all the positions at that price, but my guess is they don’t think the problem with hiring is the salary. It is a weird job, and physically demanding. In california, applicants line up ahead of time for the chance at getting auditions for this kind of job, but here in the east, even with unemployment high among young people, it just isn’t the job people are clamoring for.
If the company offered $100/hr do you think they'd have trouble filling the positions? If they wouldn't have trouble filling positions at $100/hr then their hiring problem is a wage issue and the equilibrium wage for that position lies somewhere between $10/hr and $100/hr.