Originally posted by FabianFnas how can you know his value, in order to give him a fair salary?
Well that is, in essence, the question that the OP raises.
What is your answer?
In the case of the train driver, we "can you know his value" when he refuses to work for what he says is low pay. Commerce grinds to a semi-halt, billions are lost. It seems pretty clear that the strike establishes that the train drivers are worth more than they are getting.
Originally posted by FMF Is the supply of drivers with 10-20 years' experience endless?
The better question is, is this experience crucial? My guess is no.
I would like to go a step further about high paying positions like that of a lawyer and/or doctor. Considering the level of dependence that the wealthy has upon them, they are paid the same peanuts that the drivers are paid.
Originally posted by FMF Perhaps the workers themselves do, by striking - and in doing so demonstrating how vital they are to everybody else's prosperity.
but they're always going to overestimate their own worth.
Originally posted by FMF Well that is, in essence, the question that the OP raises.
What is your answer?
In the case of the train driver, we "can you know his value" when he refuses to work for what he says is low pay. Commerce grinds to a semi-halt, billions are lost. It seems pretty clear that the strike establishes that the train drivers are worth more than they are getting.
That's right, therefore I gave you the right answer: It's plain impossible.
Originally posted by whodey The better question is, is this experience crucial? My guess is no.
I would like to go a step further about high paying positions like that of a lawyer and/or doctor. Considering the level of dependence that the wealthy has upon them, they are paid the same peanuts that the drivers are paid.
I wouldn't put lawyer generally in the class of "high paid" like a physician.
While some lawyers make very high salaries (200K+). The majority make much less.
Originally posted by FMF Perhaps the workers themselves do, by striking - and in doing so demonstrating how vital they are to everybody else's prosperity.
In many instances strikers could easily be replaced if only the governing body of the day were willing to permit it. I well remember the occasion, back in the 80s, when President Reagan successfully replaced a large number of recalcitrant air traffic controllers overnight and thus prervented them holding the nation to ransom.
Many inveterate strikers like the miners, dockworkers, printworkers, and carworkers have ended up striking themselves and their colleagues out a job altogether. In the case of postal delivery workers it is hard to imagine a more simple and less demanding task; the only qualifications needed being able to read and walk so they could be more easily replaced than most.
Originally posted by FMF So are you, broadly speaking, inclined towards seeing the role of government as protecting employers from their employees, or protecting employees from their employers?
Protecting both to the extent deemed necessary; protecting neither to an extent greater than necessary.
Of course, you can play with the definition of necessary; but that is broadly speaking.
Originally posted by badmoon As a government employee, I am offended by the tone of this thread. Lets keep away from any discussion of employee's worth.
The worth of the employee or the worth of the employee's work?
01 Nov '09 15:13
Paying people what they are worth
Back to Top