High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
N628AU said:No, it is not. Ask any company in America, union or not, and the "wages and benefits" line is a big deal. Companies get hit with double digit percentage increases in health care costs every year. How long can they go on absorbing that kind of hit? When does it get to the point where they ask do we pass along costs, decline to give out pay raises, stop expanding, or worst of all, fire Joe to pay for benefits for Sally, Jim, and Bob?
Most labor actions today are not over pay rates, but benefits costs. Look at the Southern California Supermarket strike. The companies were still paying for the lion's share of benefits costs, while paying checkers to a top of scale pay rate of $20 per hour, plus time and half on weekends, shift differentials, and double time on holidays. A checker could make $60 an hour working a Sunday holiday.
A lot of people keep talking about overtime being posted constantly, they should just hire or recall people and pay them straight time to save money. No matter how grossly mismanaged a company is, they know exactly where to the overtime pay/benefit cost line is, and when it is cheaper to cross it.
[post="169778"][/post]
Yes it is intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you've overlooked the statement of the facts are what they are, but cherry-picking ( including or excluding data and/or qualifiers selectively to strengthen one's own argument while making one's opponent's seem less reasonable ) is intellectually dishonest. Whether you agree with actual compensation is a different debate. I was responding to BB's astute observation of how some in some groups are apt to demonize another through distorted heresay.