3 ms·
Your above statement shows that you do not have any empathy or compassion for those people, as you do not want to give them the opportunity to earn a living wag
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Your above statement shows that you do not have any empathy or compassion for those people, as you do not want to give them the opportunity to earn a living wage. And I find it very dishonest of you to refer to collective bargaining as a handout, or say that if they are able to negotiate something, that it is more than they are worth. If they are able to get that deal, does that not mean they are worth that much?
- JPKab 9y agoI always want to give people opportunity to earn a living wage. The best way to earn a living wage is to learn a skill that has a market value at or above the living wage. Collective bargaining has a "tragedy of the commons" problem: Each worker's wage is negotiated as part of a bulk package, therefore the worst performers get a higher wage than they otherwise would, and the best performers get a lower wage than they otherwise would. Other side effects of collective bargaining: The union has to have tight control over new workers, otherwise their bargaining position is undermined. All new workers are required to be part of the union, who now controls hiring. In every unionized entity I've ever seen, this leads to nepotistic hiring practices. This is why NYC's fire department remained dominated by Irish Americans for decades after the demographics of NYC had completely changed. We live in an age where education has been made available enough to a large enough % of the population that the majority of the public has been able to acquire skills that allow them to earn above a living wage. The minute that % drops low enough, you will see unions getting their power back, along with a boost in public support.