BBLISA: Re: Overqualified?!?!

[Matt Galster]

I don't think any of the industries that had their workers organize in the last hundred years did so because they expected the management to think it was a good idea.  They fought until management decided they had no choice but to work with the union.  How long do you think that would work in the software field?

MEG

Steve
> Arthur Gaer wrote:
>  > Although many in the IT field seem resistant, there are many unions 
> in the
>  > US (let alone other countries) where the members are professional,
>  > creative, and autonomous, while enjoying advantages such as job security,
>  > high pay, and lack of workplace exploitation they gain from well 
> reasoned,
>  > well written, and collectively negotiated contracts.  See, for example,
>  > the newspaper guild, the directors guild, and the various university
>  > faculty unions.
> 
> If this agreement led to an intrinsically more productive group, then an 
> argument could be made that what pays for all of these good things is 
> the increase in efficiency. If, however, this is really just collusion, 
> then this becomes a societal cost. If every worker in every industry 
> decided that they deserved job security, higher pay, etc., and the only 
> thing society got in return was that particular group's comfort, we'd 
> all lose.
> 
> If the society decides that this is a good thing (e.g., U.S. probably 
> doesn't think it's a good idea to be dependent on other countries for 
> food), that's one thing. But that doesn't change the fundamental issue 
> that somebody has to incur these costs if the organization doesn't 
> increase productivity enough to offset it.
> 
> Unless the group that pays for this cost determines that this additional 
> cost is tolerable, it will ultimately reject it regardless of the wishes 
> of the organized constituency.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>