Display:
.  Why is this such a bad thing?  If the worker performs well, the company will keep him.  If not, it will fire him.

Because in that case the company has all the bargaining power and the worker has none. It's a matter of fairness. You don't start a company in a vacuum: you build it in the context of the existing infrastructure and you have responsibilities as well as rights.

In any case, there isn't a real problem getting rid of incompetent workers.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 12:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you have two potential solutions: (1) Workers at the company could unionize, and (2) if the worker performs well, making him an asset to the company, he will have bargaining power, because it will be in the company's interest to keep him.  If it were the case that the worker had no bargaining power, then people in non-unionized sectors wouldn't be able to demand raises from their bosses.  The bosses would simply say, "Go to hell.  I'll find someone else to do the job."

Sometimes that happens, of course.  A lot of times, actually.  But often it does not.

Of course you start companies within the context of the existing conditions.  I'm not denying that.  I'm saying that the conditions could be better.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Thu Feb 9th, 2006 at 12:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series