|
|
Post by colegillespie on Jan 15, 2016 5:52:02 GMT
In a capitalist economy, it can be easy for those in charge of corporations or businesses to exploit their workers. This leads to the large gap in the distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor. Historically, whenever workers tried to protest wage cuts and raise the standard of living for themselves, the government sided with the owners and silenced the protesters. As of 1935, according to the National Labor Relations Board, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act states that "Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." www.nlrb.gov/strikes Without the threat of government interference, workers are able to combat corporate greed, secure better wages for themselves, and in doing so, close the income gap. However, these protests may be disruptive. What are your thoughts on collective bargaining, do you think it might be a solution to keep the rich from getting rich at the expense of the poor? |
|
|
|
Post by bethdolin on Jan 15, 2016 7:33:48 GMT
This is a really good question! I think that collective bargaining could be a solution to the major gap that keeps growing between the rich and the poor. However, I think it may be difficult to get the employers on board to negotiate wages and even fair treatment. I think this is something that we can work our way into, but first, begin to close the gap taking a different route. Collective bargaining would help out a lot when the gap is much smaller; using this strategy to keep the wealth at a more equal and stable distribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilykbrumley on Jan 15, 2016 7:49:11 GMT
Beth I see your point and agree that collective bargaining would work well to close the wage gap when it is smaller, but I do not think it necessarily has to be the last step. For many workers simply speaking with their employers and opening up that dialogue can be very important in feeling like they are valued. This is one possible reason for employers to agree to having these discussions, as happy workers = more efficient workers. It would also show to others that their company is a good place to work, thus allowing them to convince their currently employed that they must work hard to keep their jobs, as Henry Ford did. However, I do agree that this may not be enough and perhaps is would be useful for the government to in some way facilitate such discussions (rather than silencing them), such as providing small incentives for the employers and rules to ensure the agreements are fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolesalz on Jan 15, 2016 8:12:54 GMT
Emily, i find your reasoning in collective bargaining very rational, as well as why it would be an efficient way to begin to alleviate the gap between the rich and the poor. To expand on the idea of how essential collective bargaining may be, Jim Stanford, of the Progressive Economics Forum (http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2014/02/06/collective-bargaining-and-poverty-reduction-oecd-data/ demonstrates the correlation between collective bargaining and relative poverty. The graph illustrates that the higher bargaining coverage, the lower relative poverty is as well as more equal income distribution (and vice versa). In conclusion, i believe that even though these protests may be somewhat disruptive, i think it is beneficial to both the poor and the wealthy as it is a way to provide more for the impoverished without taking away as much from the wealthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthamcgee on Jan 15, 2016 8:19:37 GMT
While I do agree that happy workers are more efficient, I think that there is still a problem with this approach. Unfortunately, many companies exist for only one reason - to make money. The whole idea of collective bargaining implies that there will be a large group of people all asking for something that will decrease the amount of money the company will make. This is a problem as a company is less likely to agree to such a proposition, especially when there are other options for them to consider other than giving into a compromise. For instance, a lot of companies have already begun to outsource their workers for example or to bring in people form poorer economies who are willing to work for less. These loopholes can prove, in the end, more damaging for those who attempt collective bargaining as they can be left with even less than they started with.
|
|
|
|
Post by connor on Jan 15, 2016 18:53:33 GMT
clearly labor unions, strikes, and sit ins are completely morally wrong and illegal. I believe cooperation's should be able to form private military units and armies in order to put down such up risings. Along with this philosophy i am also a staunch libertarian; the government should be disbanded along with all gatherings of people except companies. there is one true god. Laborers should be submissive to there overseers and should be denied all rights in the work place except for those of which there patrons allow. The government can not be allowed to regulate the work place.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianli on Jan 16, 2016 1:21:44 GMT
I belive that collective bargaining is a good start, but isn't enough to even budge the wealth divide in America to the right direction. In the end, strikes are not going to achieve much. The government needs to be completely changed into a communistic one in order for real change to occur. Under a communist government, theoretically all people will be equal. There will be no more rich people and no more poor people, but only "people".
|
|
|
|
Post by ryanfisherle on Jan 16, 2016 3:06:28 GMT
Unfortunately Brian, there aren't many examples in history of a successful communist government. "But Ryan history doesn't repeat itself!" True, but history rhymes. Communism opens the door for more corruption and misuse of funds, as shown by numerous communist regimes. However, a strictly capitalist system does not allow for a whole lot of social mobility if you start out lower on the wealth spectrum. A combination of a communism and capitalism is what we need to solve this problem.
|
|
