Stewart Stremler wrote:
begin quoting Robert Donovan as of Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:33:29AM -0700:
[snip]
Same expeience here. Unions don't reward good work. As a result of that,
there isn't as much incentive to do good work, and, as a result of that,
you tend to get an environment in which those who do mediocre or bad
work can thrive and yell for a living wage.
So, what, pray tell, are the below average *supposed* to do for a
living? 50% of people are *below average*. Are we simply supposed to
write them off? Why don't we execute them instead so that they quit
dragging down the economy? Yes, I'm being intentionally sarcastic, but
you can't just dismiss 50% of the population.
Being average or mediocre is not a crime, people. Sheesh.
Heh. True. Sad, but true.
(Of course, if you see someone abusing the system, you *can* complain.)
Of course, without unions, those who do good work would have to yell for
a living wage.
I think it's one of those damned-if-you-do-roast-in-hell-if-you-don't
things.
Ayup.
While unions "don't reward good work", the seniority system prevents
"Oh, hey, you are 50 years old. Time to get rid of you."
Besides, why is it the *union's* job to reward good work? Why don't the
*companies* have incentives to reward good work. The carrot normally
works *better* than the stick.
Without strong unions, you get attacks on benefits and pensions. See
the current fight between GM and the UAW, for example. The UAW leader
said recently, (paraphrasing) "Gee. $20 billion in cash reserves and
they paid a solid dividend this year. Doesn't sound much like the
description of a company in trouble, does it? When we see the company
cancel dividends, executive bonuses and start laying off executive
managers, we'll talk about concessions."
Yes, unions can become an problem as large as the problem they are
opposing--unchecked corporate power. However, unions, on the whole,
benefit far more people than unchecked corporations do.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
