A few days ago I responded to a WOD post with a request for clarification about a few points (major points, by my reckoning) the poster had made. I asked these questions to better understand the stance the poster had assumed as well as to continue the conversation that had ostensibly begun. I did so in all earnestness and with the understanding that the WOD allowed and even encouraged critical analysis of and response to all points made in the forum.
I initially directed my questions exclusively to the original poster, but I have since been informed that said poster refuses to answer (or even respond to) them.* I therefore redirect my queries (in a more concise form) to the entire WOD membership in the hopes that someone can (and, more importantly, will) provide clarification or explanation:
1) From what source(s) were the percentages regarding union membership and wages gathered?I appreciate any and all help in better understanding these matters.
2) How were the distinctive categories (i.e., women not in unions) and populations (what we would consider 100% of our sample) defined? (I ask because without context the numbers mentioned are essentially meaningless.)
3) How is a sweatshop worker aided by one's refusal to buy the goods said worker makes?
4) Was it the poster's intention to suggest that local governmental bodies regulate the wages paid by all contractors (of a certain size) within their jurisdictional boundaries or only those with whom the bodies do business? (And is one of these preferable to the other?)
(See below for my original queries and comments.)
Thank you in advance,
-Spencer Madsen
* In fairness, the poster indicated he refuses to answer these questions not because of their content but rather solely because *I* am the one asking them. Were another WOD member (likewise seeking further clarification or just a semblance of open dialogue) to repost these queries to the list under a name other than mine, I suspect the poster might then consider providing a response.
Spencer Madsen wrote:
Dwayne, could you clarify a point or two ?
(see below)Dwayne Voegeli wrote:I was wondering where you found these statistics. The manner in which they have been presented here would seem to indicate they represent all men and women in the American workforce, but I suspect they are much more limited in scope.
(snip)I will be the first one to admit that unions are not perfect and are open
to all kinds of improvement. Still, it is undeniable the effect unions
have on average wages. On average, women who are in unions make $116 more
per week (26% more) than women who are not in unions. Men who are unions
make, on average, $92 more per week (15% more) than men who are not in
unions. Sadly, today less than 18% of Americans belong to unions. In the
1950's and 60's, that number was over 30%.
For instance, I have no doubt that a woman working in a union shop will typically make more than another woman doing the same job in a non union situation, but I am even more certain that a woman who is vice president of a corporation makes more than both combined. Not knowing the source of the data, I cannot venture a guess if the party compiling the statistics -- recognizing that the VP likely does not desire, need, or even have the option to join a union -- did not include positions like hers (and mine and many others) in the statistical analysis.
Likewise, I would be curious to know if we are to read the shift from 30% to 18% as "working Americans" rather simply "Americans" as a huge percentage of Americans don't work for a variety of reasons (age being one that springs to mind immediately) and therefore would not be in a union.
As I said, a source might help clarify things.
That's not the way I learned it in school, but if you say so . . .With the decline in union
membership, comes a decline in democracy.
Personally, I see the drop in union membership as part of a bigger, perhaps more positive, shift.
In the information economy, American workers further their careers through reliance on special skills and personal accomplishments rather than the depersonalized power of industrial age collectives: not so much a threat to democracy as a celebration of the individual.
So we help sweat shop workers of the world by NOT buying the things they produce?By the way, if you want to help
workers in America, you also need to help protect workers in China, Taiwan,
Honduras, and all the other sweat shops of the world. What does "help"
mean in this case? It means supporting candidates that support democracy
in those countries (i.e. a Bill of Rights, true freedom of the press, a
right to organize, freedom of speech, etc.). It also means not buying
goods made by sweat shop labor.
Seriously, how does that work?
More importantly, how do these workers feed themselves while our reverse generosity plays itself out?Are you suggesting this for "all contractors above a certain size" in the region or just all that want to do business with the governing body?(snip)2. Have local government bodies adopt ordinances that require contractors,
above a certain size, to pay their workers a living wage.
If the former, then wouldn't a Winona County ordinance negate the need for one at the city level?
If the latter, then why put a size restriction on it?
Thanks,
-Spencer Madsen
