Living Wage Protests at UVA Board of Visitors Meeting

There are 6 comments on the Apr 17, 2013, NBC29 Charlottesville story titled Living Wage Protests at UVA Board of Visitors Meeting. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

Living Wage protesters at the University of Virginia made themselves known as the university's board of visitors arrived for its May meeting.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
zeb

Collinsville, VA

#42 Apr 21, 2013
They all look like they want more money for weed

“Don't Drink The Obama Kool-Aid”

Since: Aug 09

You don't need to know, Va.

#43 Apr 22, 2013
Comparing Henry Ford's doubling of wages to this "living wage" proposal is like comparing apples to oranges. Ole Henry had a problem with high employee turnover because of the absolute boredom of repetitive actions of assembly line work. Any idiot who could stand the monotony could do the work. That's why robots have taken over most of the repetive functions of assembly line work.
At UVA, the issue is people who decided that they didn't need to learn any skills to better their lot in life and expect society to pay them a "living wage."
If UVA decides to give in and up their pay, they will be worse off than they were before. The reason being that the skilled UVA employees will demand higher wages as well as all those people in unskilled positions throughout Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The end result is that prices will rise, employers will decide that they don't need as many unskilled workers, and people will be unemployed.
The labor market decides the value of a person's skills or lack there of and all a living wage does is penalizes those who obtain the necessary skills to survive.
Dude

Bumpass, VA

#44 Apr 22, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
Comparing Henry Ford's doubling of wages to this "living wage" proposal is like comparing apples to oranges. Ole Henry had a problem with high employee turnover because of the absolute boredom of repetitive actions of assembly line work. Any idiot who could stand the monotony could do the work. That's why robots have taken over most of the repetive functions of assembly line work.
At UVA, the issue is people who decided that they didn't need to learn any skills to better their lot in life and expect society to pay them a "living wage."
If UVA decides to give in and up their pay, they will be worse off than they were before. The reason being that the skilled UVA employees will demand higher wages as well as all those people in unskilled positions throughout Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The end result is that prices will rise, employers will decide that they don't need as many unskilled workers, and people will be unemployed.
The labor market decides the value of a person's skills or lack there of and all a living wage does is penalizes those who obtain the necessary skills to survive.
Not really, labor is a market. You're drawing a false conclusion, and didn't read the article you posted, which supported my argument, and then deleted it. The only problem was that I quoted it first.
Henry Ford has fewer turnovers and it cost less in training. I know we have a problem hiring skilled labor so we compensate very well. Even janitors have to be versed in MSDSes (soon to beSDSes), and proper disposal of hazardous wastes, i.e. CFLs. By keeping wages low, they ensure that those that do seek professional development leave, and those that don't stay. It effectually incentivizes the best and brightest to leave, and mediocrity to stay. That increases the cost of hiring across the board. The process of hiring is an expensive one, the cost of HR, background checks that include citizenship, credit checks, and legal (arrest records and covictions); including new hire drug tests. It increases liability as new employees are more likely to get injured, increasing the costs of insurance. It increases the cost of training, as in the previously mentioned janitorial example. Another cost is reliability, just as any restaurant manager why they carry a wait/ server staff of 110-120%. Itís because of reliability, and on any given night they can expect 10-20% of their staff to call in sick. If one wants reliability, they have to incentivize reliable people for that job, or they will leave. Low wages incentivizes mediocrity, and on the bigger picture, it reduces disposable income for the community, which hurts all industry in the community or society. If people can't afford to buy stuff, they won't or they will commit crimes. If you want to attract productive labor, you have to compensate for it. You're right, labor is a market; it's supply and demand, but you're drawing false conclusions.
.
The Chinese and Indian workers are the most likely workers in the world to call in sick or get injured (or fake injury) on the job.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-...
huck

Charlottesville, VA

#45 Apr 22, 2013
Im Ya Huckleberry wrote:
Comparing Henry Ford's doubling of wages to this "living wage" proposal is like comparing apples to oranges. Ole Henry had a problem with high employee turnover because of the absolute boredom of repetitive actions of assembly line work. Any idiot who could stand the monotony could do the work. That's why robots have taken over most of the repetive functions of assembly line work.
At UVA, the issue is people who decided that they didn't need to learn any skills to better their lot in life and expect society to pay them a "living wage."
If UVA decides to give in and up their pay, they will be worse off than they were before. The reason being that the skilled UVA employees will demand higher wages as well as all those people in unskilled positions throughout Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
The end result is that prices will rise, employers will decide that they don't need as many unskilled workers, and people will be unemployed.
The labor market decides the value of a person's skills or lack there of and all a living wage does is penalizes those who obtain the necessary skills to survive.
It's not because businesses want to offer interesting work to their employees, it's because robots are cheaper.
Apple and China comes to mind.
.
Here the real reason for not raising minimum wage:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
Pizza Jerry

Palmyra, VA

#46 Apr 22, 2013
PeopleLikeYouWillGoToHell wrote:
<quoted text>Minimum wage is $7.25. Could you live off of that? So if everyone gets an education, if they qualify for a loan, then are you saying there shouldn't be a minimum wage? You are a sick, demented person with no compassion!!
So you pay their salary, ya loser!

It's called a free market. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere if their skills are worth so much.

At least in hell we will have plenty of hors d'oeuvres.
sez you

Charlottesville, VA

#47 Apr 22, 2013
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Not really, labor is a market. You're drawing a false conclusion, and didn't read the article you posted, which supported my argument, and then deleted it. The only problem was that I quoted it first.
Henry Ford has fewer turnovers and it cost less in training. I know we have a problem hiring skilled labor so we compensate very well. Even janitors have to be versed in MSDSes (soon to beSDSes), and proper disposal of hazardous wastes, i.e. CFLs. By keeping wages low, they ensure that those that do seek professional development leave, and those that don't stay. It effectually incentivizes the best and brightest to leave, and mediocrity to stay. That increases the cost of hiring across the board. The process of hiring is an expensive one, the cost of HR, background checks that include citizenship, credit checks, and legal (arrest records and covictions); including new hire drug tests. It increases liability as new employees are more likely to get injured, increasing the costs of insurance. It increases the cost of training, as in the previously mentioned janitorial example. Another cost is reliability, just as any restaurant manager why they carry a wait/ server staff of 110-120%. Itís because of reliability, and on any given night they can expect 10-20% of their staff to call in sick. If one wants reliability, they have to incentivize reliable people for that job, or they will leave. Low wages incentivizes mediocrity, and on the bigger picture, it reduces disposable income for the community, which hurts all industry in the community or society. If people can't afford to buy stuff, they won't or they will commit crimes. If you want to attract productive labor, you have to compensate for it. You're right, labor is a market; it's supply and demand, but you're drawing false conclusions.
.
The Chinese and Indian workers are the most likely workers in the world to call in sick or get injured (or fake injury) on the job.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/01/us-...
Usually the cost of a new employee is calculated as twice their wage, benfits are usually the biggest consideration, thats why droves of big employers are turning to part time labor these days.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Virginia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scholar sees Holocaust as war on Judaism NEW Apr 21 mothman777 1
News Journalism school to release review of Rolling ... Apr 19 Finished being nice 7
News Civil War Figures: Ulysses S. Grant Apr 16 ellie 1
News Hillary Clinton's economic plans need an overhaul Apr 12 Sterkfontein Swar... 7
News Retracted Rolling Stone gang rape story blemish... Apr 7 GLOBAL GAZA 1
News Police: No evidence of gang-rape at University ... Apr 7 xrollnstone reader 4
News Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdely to Apologize f... Apr 6 SheIsNowAnExJourn... 5
More from around the web