August 06, 2009
– Comments (3)
this theory that we should simply act on our own for liberty is nice. its not realistic though. When a person stands up and says: that pay raise is too low, I won't accept it" their employer will invariably dismiss the employee and finde someone different.
Even if the company winds up paying the new employee the same amount as the outspoken (former) employee had asked for they would be (likely) getting an upgrade because the new employee would likely not be as outspoken as his predecessor was. Hence unions formed to protect individuals.
Unions can get too large and powerful, but so can corporations. You can hardly control one while letting the other one act freely and expect a neutral outcome.
If liberty is not realistic than I would like to know what is in your eyes bear?
As an employee if you are a hard worker with unique skills and expertise than you can request a higher pay. When your employer ignores you, you go to the competition.
Individuals should have the liberty to stand out. To emerge from the collective and succeed to the heights their talent provide.
liberty is realistic, there is no reason why a union should infringe upon your liberty. how are they impinging upon your liberty now? What would I reccomend? shrinking the size of both corporations and unions.
"if you are a hard worker with unique skills and expertisethan you can request a higher pay. When your employer ignores you, you go to the competition."
This is true for a select few individuals in the prime of their careers. most people do not have unique skills or expertise. They may have experience in one area or another but they are not unique in this. So, supposing the job market is good and they can make the switch to a competitor, what will make the competition treat them any better (or give you a better salary) than their previous employer?
Furthermore in a bad job market you cannot simply make that switch, and it stands to reason that during a time when unemployment is rising businesses will take part in the objectionable acts in question (as a cost saving measure)