Jim Devine writes: "what David misses is that a power imbalance exists in employer/employee relationship (usually, even if the latter has a union)."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! That kind of comment drives me nuts. I may disagree that there is a power imbalance, or I may disagree that a power imbalance is a meaningful concept, or I may disagree that the power imbalance is relevant or is a bad thing. It is not that I don't know about or ignore the issue. For example: 1. I disagree that there is inherently a power imbalance in favor of employers. If there were, employers would not spend a lot of time recruiting and trying to retain employees, which they do. Employers would not pay a penny over the minimum wage, which they do. Worker relationships are terminated far more often by quitting than firing. Employees have the power to screw employers by quitting for a better job, and they do. 2. "Power" is a very ephemeral concept. Power to do what? These are difficult philosophical issues. How do I test the hypothesis in context? 3. Without the power to do something, nothing gets done. There is nothing wrong with having power. The employer/employee relationship reflects a division of labor that increases productivity, which is recognized by both the employer and employee, and it is the rare employee who frets a moment about the power of the employer. The employee is more concerned about whether the employer is doing its job, not that it has more power. 4. What is an issue is whether the power is utilized wisely. And this is where we get back to the libertarian answer, which is that the potential problems that may arise in the employer/employee relationship are better handled by contract and reputation, as opposed to the coercive power of the state, even if the employer has more "power," however defined. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
