|
While I am unsure of the reasons behind Dwayne not giving out
the info, and not knowing either of you very well, I can only state that if the
original author were Norm Indall You would have had more than you wanted in a
bibliography. Bob K
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:36
PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Living Wage-->
Middle Class, Democracy, Unions, Winona...
Everyone-
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?
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.)
I appreciate any and all help in better
understanding these matters.
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:
(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%.
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.
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.
With the decline in union
membership, comes a decline in democracy.
That's
not the way I learned it in school, but if you say so . . .
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.
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.
So
we help sweat shop workers of the world by NOT buying the things they
produce?
Seriously, how does that work?
More importantly, how do
these workers feed themselves while our reverse generosity plays itself out?
(snip)
2. Have local government bodies adopt ordinances that require contractors,
above a certain size, to pay their workers a living wage.
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?
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
|
