Work Reform

Yes, sharing wages is always a good thing at work! My company has a tradition of an anonymous salary survey, so folks can properly grasp that it's the company's fault you aren't getting enough.

Your work sounds very unique, but thankfully I've been there a few times trying to figure out an appropriate bargaining unit. There aren't any hard and fast rules or laws on this topic, but it gives us flexibility to decide how big we go. Traveling and working at a national company has some good precedence with the Teamsters and NALC, as long as you have a "home" office that you work at when you aren't traveling, that should be enough to claim an appropriate unit.

It's ok to be first, someone has to be! What you're referring to, where unions bargain for an industry minimum for all the workers in a particular industry, is known as sectoral bargaining. It exists, but it will take time. You're taking the first step towards that point, but start just with your workplace. I also understand your concerns about the work being unique and small. Protected concerted activity only takes 2, so there's always enough people! When it comes to bargaining, you and your coworkers know the work best, which is why you elect a bargaining committee from your coworkers. For the time being before you get too concerned about how bargaining will go, you must win your union first. Even industries with sectoral bargaining still need to organize workplaces to bargain the stuff that isn't covered by the standardized working conditions.

I'm open for DMs to continue this if I didn't cover everything

I'm reading Work, Retire, Repeat currently and you're correct...only they arent so much reentering as not leaving. Many start claiming SS as soon as they can for extra money while they work...only they shoot themselves in the foot by not waiting longer to claim much higher (8%/year) benefits. Waiting until 70 nets you 96%(!) higher benefits. The rich who don't actually need the extra 8% largely benefit, and because they live longer, collect it for longer. The poor get screwed again, which of course aligns with minorities and women being the most affected.

This started in the 80s when corporations took advantage of Regan's policy to shed pensions and instead, ask financially illiterate Joe's and Janes to manage stock accounts and decide how much they should save. The results were predictable. There have been winners though, corporations (much cheaper 401ks), and financial service industry that sprang up to ~support~ pillage uninformed retirees trying to save money to find their retirement for the first time. Regan admin also raised the retirement age to 67 for Social Security in 1983. This represents a permanent 13% decrease in benefits for Americans as it's 13% less time on average they'll collect based on mortality rates

There has been a large media gull-court press to try to make working longer because:

1. Government knows citizens aren't saving enough and without pensions can't manage retirement funds. They are put in power by lobbiests that prevent changes to the 401k structure and repairing social security.

2. Corporations love older workers; they have fewer options despite the magazine covers showing laughing, healthy retirees on their laptop overlooking their vineyard. In reality they are working physically and mentally taxing jobs no one else will, and this also suppresses wages for younger workers. This is another reason why corporations lobby like hell against national healthcare...TONS of folks would stop working or work much less if they could see a doctor without bankrupting themselves, but can't until they are eligible for Medicare.

3. Financial services want that money. Asset management, trade fees, expense ratios, "financial advisors" instead of fiduciaries so much easier to bully folks when they are on their own or in small groups. National programs have buying power and muscles in the marketplace, bad for worthless leeches.

was this something from cnbc type article?

they do a lot FUD on employment topics.