Ben Rhoades wrote:
At 01:38 PM 12/7/2004, Brian Siano wrote:
You're telling me that, rather than get more money, you would follow principle and _not_ unionize your job classification? This doesn't sound as though you're working for your own self-interest.
I'm not totally dumb, of course I'd rather have more money however, I would be much happier with pay scales for everyone being much more in tune with worth of work which would make my money be able to go further. I do believe that scale is important. You work for Penn and do you think you deserve less money for doing a scientific job than say a maybe high-school graduated bus-driver?
Well, look at your first comment, about wanting pay scales that would give you more bang for your buck. That's perfectly fine, and it does reflect your own interests. BUT... you have to consider that others may be making that very same calculation. As a result, their desire may infringe upon your salary. Or, it may drive up the price of something you want.
And as ought to be pointed out, this issue of "scale" is far from a serious yardstick. For one thing, you're pretty vague about what a "scientific job" is, and matter of fact, many bus drivers do make more than many grad students. But still: is there any really _empirical _reason why a "high school educated bus driver" should make less than, say, a research scientist?
I'm serious. One can say that a research scientist has invested more in terms of education to become a research scientist-- that's fine, but it presumes that people ought to be paid more when they're better educated. One could say that a scientific researcher's doing more for society-- but many aren't doing much, and I can think of a number of jobs which are paid well for hurting society. (Say, a lawyer who defends keeping a harmful drug on the market.) Or, one could argue that paying people higher wages would drive prices up-- true, but that could also be raised as an argument to _lower_ white-collar pay until it's more in line with blue-collar work.
This is why I'm suspicious of glib assertions about the "proper" pay scales in our society.
As far as having "earned" your salary... well, I'm sure you find it comforting to think that your salary is solely due to the sweat of your brow and your own talents, but that's never the case. For one thing, the pay grades in most jobs are determined by job markets, rules of seniority, previous negotiations between labor and management (many of which are the result of union organizing), and federal law. In other words, your schooling and experience could just as easily be _ignored_ by your employers, if they hadn't had to consider such things in the past.
Yes but that is the past and I'd like to think the vast majority of places are past the point where they need unions and can get good labor and pay a decent wage w/o having to have it be over the top because a mass of people force it to be.
"But that is the past." Yes, it's in the past. And the past is relevant, especially to your assertions about your success being due to your labor. Let's apply your logic in a different situation:
A: Look at this wonderful computer. It's cutting-edge technology, has the finest software on it, and its monitor is crisp and clear. And it's due to my hard work and wise judgement.
B: But you didn't design the computer. You didn't make the chips. You didn't make the Internet. The basic architecture was theorized by von Neuman in the Fifties, the chips were developed by Intel and nVidia, and the screen was made by Dell.
A: That's all in the past.
Look at it this way. You're doing fine now. But let's say you're downsized. Would _that_ be attributable to your schooling, experience, and general personal qualities?
No idea, you?
By your logic, it would be.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
