JunkYardBike

Personally, I value working towards a more equitable and democratic workplace and world. So, go for it, seamuskeogh. See what happens. Learn from it. We need more of this type of "experimentation."

slowandsteady

Sounds like somebody was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Now that college is over with(and paid for by mommy and daddy), he needs a new way to scam money off of someone else that took the risks, paid huge sums of money up front to be successful. This guy is a just a leach and a thief.

Butterthebean

To the OP....I admire what you're doing, but not WHERE you're doing it. If you really care about fair and equitable treatment in the work place, take your efforts someplace that will affect the lives of many. Ask them to open their books. Demand a living wage and better benefits. Do it where it will do the most good for the most people.


Go work at Wal Mart.

oilman_15106

While you are at it why not form a union for the idiot and dishonest ebay sellers? They need protection too.

onbike 1939

I can't see where it was stated that the employees joining a union (their legal right as I understand it), were making a threat of destroying the owner's business. That seems to be conjecture on your part. They were intent on bettering their working conditions and where is the fault in that?
Whenever the subject of unions appears there are the usual rabid anti-union opinions equating unions with communism, socialism and heaven knows what other supposed horrors. These comments usually come from Americans who have been brainwashed for many years and wouldn't know a communist or a socialist if they were hit on the back of the head with one. Whether you like it or not, historically, unions have done more than any other organisation to improve working conditions for ordinary workers. In Europe, unions are not regarded as they seem to be in the USA, but are generally seen by enlightened employers, as partners with employers in ensuring the well-being of the business.
By "dog eat dog" attitude I mean the the attitude, all too prevalent in the States, that the strongest or the richest take all, while the weak go to the wall and are seen as "losers".

WalterMitty

Follow the link to the IWW mission statement as posted multiple times now and educate yourself.

Quote:

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth."

Does that sound like anything other than seizing the owners' property for use as they see fit?

Granted, the labor laws of the U.S. grant the right to organize, but we're not talking about the UAW trying to organize a Toyota plant here.

From the other thread:

A brief history of the IWW.

LINK

Friends of the IWW.

LINK

The IWW philosophy.

IWW Mission Statement

Even in the world of labor unions, the IWW is considered an extreme Left organization. Pretend you own a shop you've spent the last 20 years building, then go read the IWW Mission Statement.

onbike 1939

Yes, I'd agree that the Wobblies are at the extreme left of the union movement and moreover I think that their mission statement is utterly unrealistic in view of the world we live in today. Having said that I don't think that the OP deserves all of the abuse heaped upon him in this thread just because he wants to organise a union. I do recognise that small businesses can be vulnerable to unfair union practices but a wholesale condemnation of unions per se is, in our present economic climate, short-sighted and self-defeating.
Large businesses have now become global concerns and have used the latitude given by this to move the means of production to the cheapest source of labour. Exactly who will defend the rights of the employees in this situation? Certainly not the plucky little blue-collar worker standing on his own and defying the clout of big business. If labour does not organise to defend its rights in this new situation then who will?
As it stands the working conditions of American workers are much inferior to those in most of Europe. We marvel at the lack of holidays and long working hours prevalent in the States and are dismayed at the lack of health care for a large portion of your population. Are you confident that government with its unhealthy relationships to big business, will take care of this?

WalterMitty

I appreciate your sincere concerns and thoughtful questions regarding the new global marketplace and what is happening to U.S. Labor.

I have been struggling for nearly three decades to stem the decline of U.S. Production and Manufacturing. My education and my working life have been spent in manufacturing plants from coast to coast. The reasons for the decline are many and way too cumbersome to cover here; but this one thing I know, the jobs being lost at the fastest rate are those jobs that combine very high costs with rigid, inflexible capabilities.

None of the unions have anything to offer to alleviate this situation because at their foundation they are chartered to increase costs (wages) and reduce flexibility (work rules). How did we come to the point where it is now economical to ship products halfway around the world from point of manufacture to market? Does anyone here know where I can buy a U.S. made mass-produced Bicycle? DVD player? TV Set? Wrist Watch? Pipe Fitting? Ceiling fan? The list goes on.

Yet, while GM is shutting plants and in decline, Toyota, Honda, and others are opening manufacturing plants (in the U.S.!) and increasing market share!

The unions are not solely to blame; it took multiple parties to make agreements and some pretty stupid business decisions that made it impossible for Delco to stay in business. Even today, Harley Davidson is locked in a battle to control costs so the day doesn’t arrive that even “Harley Davidson’s” are “Made In China”.

The working people in this country (including me) aren’t in competition with the “Rich People” in this country. They are in competition with poor Chinese and Indian Programmers and labor markets most of us couldn’t find on a map.

What the management and labor in this country must realize is that if the value you add to a product can be replaced by a peasant in the PRC and a long boat ride, it will be. Today’s labor and management forces must bring more brains and more value than can be traded for six weeks lead time on a container ship; or a trip across town.

No matter what example of piss-poor management you would like to examine, the solution is never brought about by unionization. I would be delighted to be proven wrong and would challenge any labor union on the face of this rock to start a manufacturing company and prove just that.

It hasn’t happened for lack of desire.

TRaffic Jammer

Well you'll certainly never see equal pay in a union shop..... seniority, bubbles and the like will make sure of that. The IWW? Are you mad?
Now that you have a free and clear piece of paper with no debt....why don't you do out in the world and do some real learnin' now. Stand on your own damned feet OP. I've spent the better part of my adult life paying off student loans and to listen to this prattle from you makes me somewhat ill. Go do your social experimentation elsewhere.

jaxgtr

So I have to know, how much money do you have at risk in this bike shop? Did you mortgage your house to get it started? Is you name on the legal documents, on the UCC's, are you liable for all the expenses? At 22 you are living in some fantasy land that some dip $@it college professor polluted your mind with who has never worked in the real world has given you this notion that either the Govt or a business owner must provide all subsistence. This is insane.

If you want to make a bigger wage, try working harder or get a job in what ever you got your degree in, unless it’s something useless literature or art history. Don’t get me wrong, those are nice thing to have, but you won’t make a living with them. Please don't tell me your degree is in economics, because you might need to go back and take a refresher course from another professor that knows what they are doing.

If I opened a business and put all my blood sweat and tears into making it work and I am lucky enough to succeed to the point where I can add employees, I would be jumping for joy. You have no idea how to run a business, but because you see profit going to someone else, you think that is unfair. Tough crap, offer to buy the business and you run it your way, take the responsibility of the day to day operations, pay the bills, make a payroll and lets see you disperse all the profits to the employees. Why not do an employee buyout from the owner, then everyone can divvy up all the profits equally back at the IWW socialist commune.

Until that time comes around, drink a nice steaming cup of "shut the hell up".

CHenry

<<as another point, while bicycle store owners are generally not multi-millionaires they are in a position where they are profiting off the work of their employees who are paid an hourly wage. Not all bicycle shops are profitable, but those that aren't profitable are not long for this earth anyway. The shop I work at is quite profitable comparatively to other LBS, and in my opinion every dollar of profit is a dollar in unpaid wages.

(Bolds mine)

Then you can't object to the flip side of that argument: every dollar paid above the lowest available wage in the market is wasted profit.

You are claiming the profits on the business with no equity and no risk stake. Somehow you have convinced yourself that anything above what the store pays you that it collects for its services is somehow your money. Of course it isn't, it is the customer's money until he pays it to the shop owner, the guy you pretend to be a friend of. Seems to me you ought to buy into the business and take some of the risk. Why not offer to buy a piece of the business? If you are so flush, I am sure a bank will lend to you if you have some collateral. Heck, see if your folks will co-sign your note.

Of course then, if it was your money in the business, and your neck on whom the note payment was resting, that might make your union idea seem a little different. Your unionized co-workers who didn't share your risk but who want some of that money you could use to pay off your note--those "unpaid wages", to quote you--well, that claim might seem a little different too.

In all your posts, you never have mentioned wanting to share the risk of the enterprise in exchange for a better deal on pay and benefits. You never wrote that you wanted to buy a portion of the business from your employer in exchange for the control you have said you wanted over what you see as his profits (= your unpaid "wages", to distinguish those he actually did pay you). I am almost coming to believe you think that unionizing will let you have your cake and eat it too.

maddmaxx 

A money grab pure and simple. Stop with all the rhetoric. He's got some and you think it should be yours.

bellweatherman

Totally agree. It's all a farce. Greed drives some people real far.

seamuskeogh

well the farce is going well so far. We have started collective bargaining, and business is picking up as the season gets into full swing. The boss gave the raises that the union was asking for as a sign of good faith towards negotiation.

I am sorry to see so much anti-worker vitriol on the forum, but thus is the way of things I suppose.

I hope everyone, digitized friend or foe, has a wonderful day.

- in solidarity,
Josh Keogh

Dewaine

https://www.mises.org/story/2124

WilliamK1974

This was exactly what I was thinking. Not to sound condescending, but I went through a phase kind of like that when I was 21 or 22. Working a bad retail job where the boss couldn't be counted upon to fulfill their promises didn't help, and having some form of Marxism fed to me in some college classes added to the problem. I couldn't stand the thought that distant owners and shareholders were getting rich off of me. So, I finished school and got a real job. It sucked for other reasons, but that's another story for another day...

Where I live, $8/hr would be considered a windfall by some, and $10/hr would make you almost rich. Why do you think Wal-Mart has more people apply for its jobs than they have openings? Seems like the starting wage there is around $8.50/hour. I'd love to have a summer job like the one the OP has in the bike shop, especially if it were hourly and I could work around my classes, but that might be too much to hope for. Sounds like its a good working environment with an owner who cares.

goaliedad30

Business is not a democracy. It's capitalism. The business is NOT run for the benefit of the employees, it's run for the benefit of the OWNERS. That's true whether it's a 2-man operation or General Electric. You're misunderstanding how capitalism works .... I'm guessing there weren't many economics courses in your college program!

As has been said before, if you think you can do it better, and with a better model, build a business plan, raise capital, and have at it. You may succeed wildly. You may fail. Such is capitalism.

ScrubJ

Remind us of how well things are for you next year. Personally, I'd have closed the shop.

JunkYardBike

If many shops are barely staying afloat, and workers are being paid poor wages...why so much infighting? As a consumer, the cost of bicycles and bicycle parts is outrageous. Maybe there's another culprit...large volume bicycle and parts manufacturers? Effectively, the shops selling big name brands are the serfs of the bicycle industry, so very little profit is left for the shop owners or the employees. Maybe bike shops need to form collectives to fight the manufacturers.

goaliedad30

I would have formed a separate shell company, owned by a different family member and sold the assets of the business (distribution agreements, leases, etc.) to the shell company. Then I would close the existing shop, bankrupt it, and have the shell holding company begin operations with different employees. Laws vary by state, but there are clearly ways to close down the business being unionized and get rid of the workers without losing the fundamentals of the business.

I have a very difficult time believing that the shop owner can't find quite a number of folks willing to take a part-time wrenching gig, especially in a college town. Young Mr. Keogh will find out sooner rather than later than "bike mechanic" is pretty low on the economic scale of skilled labor. Yes, there are gurus out there ... but 95% of the work does not take that much training or unique education.

Cyclist0383

I have absolutely no anti-worker sentiments, in fact I'm quite pro-worker in most worker/employer conflicts. And I won't break a strike, either. But I think you are a very misguided rich kid who has very little real world experience and feels he is owed something from the world.

Even you stated that you had a happy working environment and a good relationship with your boss. Did you just try talking with him? Or was the propaganda from IWW just too strong for you to resist?

May your adversarial actions come back to you in spades.

Dewaine

"The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first."

https://www.mises.org/econsense/ch37.asp


"In addition to their habitual use of violence, the entire theory of labor unions is deeply flawed. Their view is that the worker somehow "owns" his job, and that therefore it should be illegal for an employer to bid permanent farewell to striking workers. The "ownership of jobs" is of course a clear violation of the property right of the employer to fire or not hire anyone he wants. No one has a "right to a job" in the future; one only has the right to be paid for work contracted and already performed. No one should have the "right" to have his hand in the pocket of his employer forever; that is not a "right" but a systematic theft of other people's property.

Even when the union does not commit violence directly, it should be clear that the much revered picket line, sanctified in song and story, is nothing but a thuggish attempt to intimidate workers or customers from crossing the line. The idea that picketing is simply a method of "free expression" is ludicrous: if you want to inform a town that there's a strike, you can have just one picket, or still less invasively, take out ads in the local media. But even if there is only one picket, the question then arises: on whose property does one have the right to picket, or to convey information? Right now, the courts are confused or inconsistent on the question: do strikers have the right to picket on the property of the targeted employer? This is clearly an invasion of the property right of the employer, who is forced to accept a trespasser whose express purpose is to denounce him and injure his business. "

Katzenjammer

I haven't finished reading the thread, but I just had to jump on this bit of misinformation. GBS would never have said anything so idiotic: he was a socialist his whole life.

The actual author of that piece of nitwittery has understandably always chosen to remain anonymous.

Katzenjammer

Josh, I was struck by this statement of yours: in my opinion every dollar of profit is a dollar in unpaid wages.

On one level, your opinion reflects the truth--the net profit does go into someone's pocket, and so the big question is 'whose pocket(s), and why?'.

But how, in your view, should risk be compensated? Your statement appears to dismissively ignore that.

Everyone in the shop is taking a risk by being there rather than somewhere else that's more stable, better paid, offers brighter prospects, etc. But the owner is also risking the fruits of earlier years--the money with which he capitalised the shop canonically represents a piece of his life, now lost to him forever and represented in current time only by the money he saved.

How should his risk, which is probably very substantial--thousands of hours more than any employee, be compensated?

Others here have suggested that what you should really be working on creating isn't unionisation but a cooperative/collective (true socialist) shop, with ownership and thus both risk and reward being fully distributed. And that would certainly solve the problem, since the only true way to compensate risk is with ownership. Capitalism, of course, exploitatively acknowledges only money-risk, not life-risk, and so doesn't offer a model for understanding how to solve the problem you have. How would you solve the problem, in the context of the shop where you are? Can you solve it? Do you agree that it needs solving?

ScrubJ

My position now and all along is, the OP should take some of his riches and open his own shop. That would be the only good end to this post.