Labor unions and their liberal allies threaten jobs

By Tom Quiner


People should be paid on the basis of need rather than merit.

Skills should be irrelevant to wages goes the liberal way of thinking. Even more, labor unions believe wages should be determined by longevity rather than ability. As liberals and unions use their political clout to artificially raise labor costs, something has to give.

What is that something? Jobs.

Business Insider writes:

“Many people fear a jobless future — and their anxiety is not unwarranted: Gartner, an information technology research and advisory firm, predicts that one-third of jobs will be replaced by software, robots, and smart machines by 2025.”

When employers are coerced to pay wages they can’t afford, or that exceeds productivity gains that are normally associated with higher wages, they will inevitably look to automation.

We see the artificial wage issue at work in the fast food industry that employs an army of teenagers, many of whom are in their first job.

Despite these entry level fast-food jobs, teenage unemployment is high.

But the unemployment rate for minority teenagers is out of sight, fluctuating from the 30s to the 40 percent rate, and higher.

Minimum wage hikes are especially hard on low skilled, entry-level workers. Now liberals are screaming for a $15 minimum wage.

When Big Government forces private businesses to pay workers more than their skills are worth, workers either lose their jobs or new jobs are not created. In some cases, machines replace people. That is exactly what McDonald’s is exploring, as you can see in the photo above.

The minimum wage is a heartless job killer for minority kids trying to get a foothold in the labor force.

You may be next.

As liberals dictate wages, machines will swoop in and begin replacing human beings who have been priced out of their jobs by liberal elites who know what is best for you.


  1. travojones on May 3, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    I see you’ve taken the conservative route of presenting a bunch of supposed problems while offering no solutions 🙂

    The fact that you say productivity gains lead to higher wages is exactly why labor unions are needed. Because productivity gains have done little for wages….a minimum wage that followed productivity gains would’ve laughing at a measly $15/hr. So where did all that extra money go, if not towards higher wages for those that increased production? Management, shareholders…all unaccountable because individual employees have no mechanism to fight back. Unless they have a union.

    I’ll admit that I don’t like the seniority pay and protection things in unions, except when it protects an employee that may be nearing retirement age that a company wants to fire because of their age. Unions are far from perfect, but better than the alternative.

    • quinersdiner on May 3, 2015 at 8:07 pm

      I agree that trade unions have served a purpose. Their purpose has become increasingly counter productive at the expense of low skill workers who have a more difficult job entering the workforce.

  2. travojones on May 3, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    I would say they’re more important now than ever. One of the best benefits of a union is that they provide the training for the job they represent, often at their own expense. And this is high quality, high skill training. If you want to be able to wash windows on the 40th floor and not worry about falling, I’m hoping that training is done in a union facility and not “on-the-job.” If we have a low skill worker problem, then crushing those training programs with right-to-work laws and public union busting is the exact opposite of how to fix that problem.

  3. digiomatics on May 3, 2015 at 10:59 pm

    Reblogged this on Digiomatic.

  4. Shawn Pavlik on May 4, 2015 at 9:22 am

    What would you think about a new min wage that would start at, say, 21 or 22? Just wondering…

    • quinersdiner on May 4, 2015 at 9:31 am

      I have a simple solution: leave it up to each individual state. Why in the world is Congress setting the minimum wage when the cost-of-living varies so wildly state-by-state? This would allow states to compete for labor in a more efficient way. To your specific suggestion, I have heard proposals for a “sub-wage” for teens, which is an improvement over the status quo. I think I like your suggestion even better, because it would engage more of our youth in the labor force earlier and reduce the ridiculously high teen unemployment rate. The dignity of work can be a civilizing force for society.

      • Shawn Pavlik on May 4, 2015 at 3:00 pm

        It would also take care of the “living wage” argument, i.e. “no one can support a family on this wage”. Most people under the age of say 21 are not supporting a family.