3 ms·

The situation you describe (striking every other year) is indicative of low bargaining power, as they have to resort to extreme measures and still don't get wha

The situation you describe (striking every other year) is indicative of low bargaining power, as they have to resort to extreme measures and still don't get what professions with high bargaining power get offered even without negotiation. One cause of low bargaining power for this type of professions (characterised by low pay, relatively high education requirements, decent social status/respect, working with people, often majority female) is that in those positions "the market knows" that the strikers won't fulfil the only threat that matters, namely, simply abandoning that profession for a career path that pays more but is worse in other aspects (generally, unskilled or semi-skilled jobs with less social respectability and work conditions - e.g. painting jobs in construction, driving a garbage truck, etc; it generally would seem a downgrade for a teacher even with an increase in pay) and that theres a nontrivial niche of young people who are still intentionally studying for that profession despite knowing that the pay sucks, because they are motivated by factors other than money. The more people there are who are highly motivated to do that job for non-compensation reasons, the less bargaining power the whole profession has, and it is reflected in pay.

runarberg 6y ago
See, this makes me think that the term “Bargaining power” is a post-hoc construction with a-priori explanatory power for salaries. Saying “People have higher salaries because they have more bargaining power” sounds to me like people stating that „courageous people score highly on the courageous personality factor“, or that “there are so many unmarried men because there are so many bachelors”. Or maybe low bargaining power is just another way to say easily exploitable in the current economic system. If that is the case I’ll subscribe to your theory, as a very similar theory was constructed by Karl Marx in 1867.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Bargaining power would refer also to the power to obtain favorable non-salary conditions (and to other types of negotiations), but "low bargaining power" certainly does imply "easily exploitable", yes. It's not entirely tautological - it does say that they get a poor bargain because they're in weak position to bargain for more, which is kind of the default cause for that (at least in economies with a mostly free labor market - if the salaries aren't set by market, then bargaining power is not that relevant), but it also clarifies that the poor bargain didn't happen because of, say, lack of trying or lack of information or fraud or pure randomness, and it also implies that their situation won't change unless either the main factors weakening their bargaining power (mostly the "excessive supply" issue) change or they get handed (e.g. through legislation) a better bargain than they would be able to negotiate. The power to strike is relevant as the capability for collective action does grant a somewhat higher bargaining power that they would have otherwise, other things being equal; but of course there are many professions which have a higher inherent bargaining power without even attempting to organize, simply due to having better alternative employment opportunities.

runarberg 6y ago

See, this makes me think that the term “Bargaining power” is a post-hoc construction with a-priori explanatory power for salaries. Saying “People have higher salaries because they have more bargaining power” sounds to me like people stating that „courageous people score highly on the courageous personality factor“, or that “there are so many unmarried men because there are so many bachelors”. Or maybe low bargaining power is just another way to say easily exploitable in the current economic system. If that is the case I’ll subscribe to your theory, as a very similar theory was constructed by Karl Marx in 1867.

PeterisP 6y ago
Bargaining power would refer also to the power to obtain favorable non-salary conditions (and to other types of negotiations), but "low bargaining power" certainly does imply "easily exploitable", yes. It's not entirely tautological - it does say that they get a poor bargain because they're in weak position to bargain for more, which is kind of the default cause for that (at least in economies with a mostly free labor market - if the salaries aren't set by market, then bargaining power is not that relevant), but it also clarifies that the poor bargain didn't happen because of, say, lack of trying or lack of information or fraud or pure randomness, and it also implies that their situation won't change unless either the main factors weakening their bargaining power (mostly the "excessive supply" issue) change or they get handed (e.g. through legislation) a better bargain than they would be able to negotiate. The power to strike is relevant as the capability for collective action does grant a somewhat higher bargaining power that they would have otherwise, other things being equal; but of course there are many professions which have a higher inherent bargaining power without even attempting to organize, simply due to having better alternative employment opportunities.