quote:

---

The living wage level is usually the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family above federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement. The wage rates specified by living wage ordinances range from a low of $6.25 in Milwaukee to a high of $12 in Santa Cruz.

* In addition to setting wage levels, many ordinances also have provisions regarding benefits (such as health insurance and paid vacation), labor relations, and hiring practices.

---

From the Economic Policy Institute living wage fact sheet.

And do you really want to get into labour-management disputes over the company's accounting methods, as they try to hide their profits in order to keep the wages from rising?

The Wobblies used to argue for a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. They never demanded to be treated like shareholders.

[ 06 August 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

In every office i worked in i saw people in management, not because they served important functions, but simply because they had connections higher up, or because they had no one to account to for their productivity or the lack of it.

From the preamble to the constitution of the IWW:
'Instead of the conservative motto,"A fair day's wage for a fair day's work", we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system".

quote:

---

I have always found it peculiar that it is 'worker' wages that get cut when profits are poor. Since management is responsible for managing the affairs of the company, it seems much more appropriate that management take the economic hit for poor profits. Afterall, workers only make the product. It is management's responsiblity to be on guard for market changes that can affect 'the bottom line'.

---

Are there really many cases when employees' wages have been cut? From my experience, that doesn't happen. Costs are reduced by laying people off.

Source: Best Retail Workers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Are there really many cases when employees' wages have been cut? From my experience, that doesn't happen. Costs are reduced by laying people off.

---

whoa, proaxiom, you really do chug the kool-aid eh? I would humbly submit that when you are laid off, that would constitute a fairly substantial wage cut. particularly since the likelyhood of qualifying for EI is pretty slim these days ( the current figures are 40% eligibility nationally, to a low of 20% in the GTA) thanks to Paul Martin's 1995 budget.

the simple fact remains that the only laws on the books that protect and guarantee fair wage compensation within industry sectors, is those of collective bargaining that are codified in the contract law of a collective agreement. yes, i am referring to union agreements. you don't have to like it, or understand it, but it is true.

also re:wobbly's posting:

quote:

---

I think that before any workers take a pay cut they should be allowed to see the books, and see if saving can be made elsewhere. There is no doubt in the capitalist system that sometimes a company may stop running a profit, but often what gets cut is an issue of priorities. If the company wants to make that argument let them open the books and allow us to take a look. In fact I would see this as a positive development if it were to happen, maybe even more than a pay raise, as it would be one more step towards self management of industry.

---

this is also only possible through the legal processes included in collective bargaining. a company can be compelled to show the union negotiators' lawyers and accountants, likely with a confidentiality agreement, to do this. In 15 years of bargaining, i have heard companys puff up thier chests and suggest this, and when the bluff is called, back down and delay, obfuscate, or simply remove silly or onerous parts of thier demands.

when you are within a collective bargaining process, it is possible to compare prevailing wages in a particular sector, take into account the cost of living, the finacial health of the company, and make serious and intelligent suggestions or requests regarding compensation. this is possible because your dues support the staff of economists and lawyers necessary to wade through the enormous amounts of regulatory and commercial bumf that is inscrutable and simply too time consuming for the average working person to deal with.

a retail worker at this point in our country is likely underpaid and overworked, with only the minimum standards of provicial labour laws to rely on for fair treatment. other than minimum wage standards, these laws do very little else to benefit a worker in regards to compensation. companies have professionals to do thier negotiating and prepare thier contracts. the only avenue for an employee to challenge this is to belong to a union and access the same level of professional help. the sooner this is taken advantage of by the average worker, the better off they will be, and will have more say in their work. you don't have to like it, but if you can prove me wrong i will be impressed.

as for this from proaxiom:

quote:

---

And sometimes it does happen that executives reduce their own pay when times are hard for the company.

---

quote:

---

aside from making me laugh so hard my hernia scar aches now, if you can provide a single example of this, with a mimimum of research, i can likely show you a snow job and PR exercise in false empathy.

---

It happens all the time, even if not nearly as often as it should.

[ 14 August 2006: Message edited by: wobbly ]