3 ms·
The balance of power involved makes is inimical to negotiation for many classes of employees in the United States. And because people are more important than bu
by eropple 8y ago
The balance of power involved makes is inimical to negotiation for many classes of employees in the United States. And because people are more important than businesses, this is something of a problem.
- sp332 8y agoYeah. I just don't understand your comment. The company and the employee both need to have some power to define the job role and compensation.
- eropple 8y agoI agree. As it stands, the employee, barring fairly singular instances (and, I note, I am one and I have hired them, I understand where the line goes), has no power. They have a Hobson's choice not merely with one employer but with all of them.
- sp332 8y agoOk so, wouldn't you want this situation to come up more often, where a prospective employee can get the contract changed? You said you'd rather not have this happen at all.
- eropple 8y agoExcept that it won't happen more often because that power imbalance exists. I have some power when negotiating because I'm experienced, I'm very good at something in extreme demand, and I'm knowledgeable about how a business works. Most people don't have two or more of those things. You describe a senior and socially competent tech worker's delight. Some of us have empathy for those who are not. "Oh, but more people with no market power can 'negotiate'" is not a net benefit for people even if it was a beneficial situation for me. "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."