Overqualified?!?!

[steve at cyberianhamster.com (Steve)]

Derek D. Martin wrote:
> At some point hitherto, Steve hath spake thusly:
>>Unionizing in response to this is just putting one's head in the
>>sand.  You use non-market forces (basically public collusion) to
>>fight a free market battle. Guess who will win in the long term?
> 
> 
> This, I entirely agree with.  Unions are a tool of the mediocre to
> ensure unwarranted advancement, and of the piss-poor to avoid
> termination.  I'd much rather compete on my merits.

Er...this isn't exactly my stance. Unionizing in response to market 
factors just doesn't work. The market could care less what a small group 
of people want if it costs more than the market wants to bear. American 
jobs are nice and everything, but the U.S. populace didn't care too much 
about the UAW if the American cars guzzle gas and are shoddy in a time 
of soaring gas prices but the foreign imports are more fuel efficient, 
cheaper, etc.

But that's a lot diffrent than unionizing in response to non-market 
forces (e.g., company in a closed town just wants to cut wages to 
increase its bottom line). Unions were created to prevent a powerful 
centralized entity (employer) from preying upon the fragmentation and 
individual lack of power of its employees. Here, forming a union makes 
sense.

Steve