Originally Posted by Carving Lance
Prosperous corporations and businesses create jobs for employees. For the past 7 years, and coming right out of a recession the admin. raised taxes on the middle and upper income businesses and people, while regulating the living holy Hell out of them. Hence the weak recovery. Then the democrats all voted, w/ not one rep. the obamacare monstrosity that has in some cases nearly doubled premiums while jacking up by 300% or more the deductables. Huge out of pocket costs for the lower and middle class taxpayers. And you wonder why the 4thQ GDP was under one percent? Wonder why hiring is tepid?
Another president came out of a recession by cutting tax rates and helping to do some de-regulation, remember? And the GDP almost hit EIGHT PERCENT. An 8% GDP means employers are competing actively for workers, and yes, incomes rise robustly in an economy bustling along at 4-8% gdp growth. PS Cutting tax RATES increases tax REVENUES, admitted in a Pres. debate by BHO to HRC in 2008. But he said it wasn't FAIR, so you all swooned at the insanity of the position.
So offer unionization all you want, just do it openly and fairly without the NLRB trying to intimidate employers whose workers reject the union dues grab.
Like employment and wage growth as I do? Reject this intentional crippling of our economy by an Administration that is more concerned with offending a murderous religion than resisting the leading state sponsor of terror.
BTW, PCMR was great over Christmas.
You seem confused about cause and effect with respect to the economic policies under a number of administrations. And about corporate behavior in general.
Generally, "corporations and businesses" create jobs only when that is the best way to maximize shareholder value. Short sighted ones will even maximize short term profit at the expense of long term value (though to be far, the markets often reward that - and people operate to their metrics). But to generalize - companies will hire only when that is the cheapest immediate way to increase shareholder value. Often this comes along with a policy of minimizing short term expense per employee to the greatest extent possible. That can leave employees/contractors and the rest of us picking up the tab for many things (ref Wal Mart's history of hiring lots of part time folks and dumping healthcare on taxpayers).
There is good and bad in the way unions often seem to operate in the USA. But in the immediate context, it is pretty clear that patrollers, like EMTs, perform an important function yet are under-compensated. This should be fixed for at least three reasons. One is ethical - we should not allow pseudo-free markets to cause the compensation of entire job categories to fall to a level below reasonable subsistence. Another is pragmatic - we should not continue the trend of corporate entities privatizing profits but socializing a wide range of costs. And finally, we have a very good selfish reason - personal safety and quality of on hill experience. I want happy, well trained, and motivated patrollers out there.
IMO the "right" way to do this is via well architected wealth redistribution in order to make a basic income and medical care a fundamental right. Then folks can decide just how low they want to go in terms of wages in order to work a "lifestyle" job without being screwed and without ending up as an undue burden on others (or crippled or homeless). In other words, changing the environment in which we let market forces do their thing.
But that presumably is a long way off. Until then, the best way to bring some symmetry to the employer/labor power dynamic is likely for labor to organize. That includes patrollers.
My safety routinely depends on the competence of patrol. I'm not talking about patrol just splinting a tweaked knee - I mean serious avalanche control, smart opening decisions, folks who could do high angle rescues if something really goes south, folks who have a clue if I need to be roped off a lift etc. So from the perspective of a customer, those folks unionizing to ensure fair compensation and proper ongoing professional training would be fine by me. As a citizen, that is fine by me.
As mentioned upthread - it is worth looking at Piketty. For a slightly different but related set of commentary, see what Nick Hanauer has had to say.