Posted on 11/16/2010 10:12:16 AM PST by FreeManDC
So you're OK with believing that your pay is in fact the same as long as the NUMBER is the same, even if the cost of goods has gone up, and having to work more, harder, or smarter to eat, dress and drive the same as last year?? Whatever. I figure if I produce more I'm entitled to consume more. That would seem to just be common sense.
"entitled?" ....there it is. If you produce more and are not rewarded for doing so...move on to someone else who recognizes your contribution and is willing to compensate you for that. Otherwise adjust your spending habits to your means. Entitled....nope.
When did I say anything about the government determining anything? I realize this is in a thread about wage regulation, but I was off on a specific tangent and have never said or implied that government should mandate, or should even have the power to mandate, cost of living increases. My point is that as both an employer and an employee, and I have been both, as well as solitary self-employed, I expect pay to stay level in terms of buying power, not numbers. And yes, I’ve been in places that didn’t pay fairly and vote with my feet is what I did. You seem to have somehow got this idea I was in favor of government regulation even though I never said so. Shoot, I don’t even agree with the concept of a minimum wage, but neither do I approve of companies who aspire to pay their employees less every year through attrition of dollar value. That was my point, the right and wrong of how to be employers and employees, not arguing for regulation. There, I hope I’ve said that enough times.
Yes, “entitled” as in I have that coming, as does anyone working for me. Why would I cut their pay for the same work? I have the same attitude on this issue whether I’m the one signing the checks or the one cashing them. Exceptions would be if you’re in an industry where you’re unable to increase your prices even in an overall inflationary environment (and I would agree to this as both employee and employer) or government employees who aren’t creating anything. They’re lucky if we don’t cut their pay in actual numerical terms.
That is a nice arrangement you have; pure merit.
Damn straight. Like I said it keeps everyone’s incentives neatly in their little boxes.
Everything is negotiable, especially wages. One reason unions were attractive in the early days was that many really good workers were lousy negotiators.
Unions pushed too far beyond negotiating what was fair for the good workers to what benefitted the union’s growth and the power and money of its leaders. The result to that was the decline of the unions (in the private sector).
Now in union shops the good negotiator negotiates with the union rep for the best job title and perks rather than with management. And in the vast majority of non-union employers, it is likewise the good negotiator who gets the high wage, not the good worker.
One question that is a mystery is why hiring and promoting managers irrationally pick the good BS artist over the good worker when the choice is very obvious. In my field of IT there is almost no correlation between wages and the value a worker adds to a project or company. In fact, it is most often the incompetent or lazy BS artist who is on the fast track for promotions to AVP.
Where are the companies that have a culture where that is not true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.