2003 all over again
Four years ago I got in hot water with a friend, for failing to be sufficiently sympathetic to her union's strike for clerical workers at the U of MN.
She's happily gone from the University, but once again, the workers are striking, day 14 now. The issue is apparently one of "fairness", principle over reality. Workers want a FULL cost-of-living raise, one apparently approved for by state funding AND given to other U workers, while the U administration apparently have some excuse against this (assuming comparisons to "fair market wages" for similar jobs) and apparently claim they can get by just fine without the workers on strike. The U must figure a 1% difference is too small to keep workers on the picket lines.
My failure in 2003 was to suggest that workers unsatisified by their wages are better off just quitting than sitting around demanding what isn't given freely. Well, I didn't say it so coldly, but not much better. It's my "self-defense" against a cruel world, my ego wants to be above power struggles, BUT easy for me to say when I've never negociated a salary level in my life - just accepted whatever was offered, AND never felt shorted. I've wondered at times, hearing higher salaries from others, whether I could make more, but I'll trade flexibility of a small company over higher income. Plus, I've always earned over twice what I ever needed. So I'm spoiled and a hopeless person to get sympathy from.
I lean towards the same conclusion again for U workers. I think they've probably got it pretty good (compared to other options) OR they'd not stay! The only way to get higher wages is to REDUCE the supply of workers willing to do the work. THEREFORE those who can afford to go elsewhere (and get paid LESS perhaps) can do a favor for those remaining, who will then be in higher demand. Well, so my outrageous theory goes.
The whole power game outrages me still, the idea that workers have to fight for fair wages. I don't like unions either, full of leaders who are more interested in glory than letting their members contribute work as they can. YES YES, I know "Solidarity for fair wages" and all that, but how much here is EGO?! There's no "fair", there's only the reality of supply and demand.
I am outraged that people like me can make good money punching out computer programs, while teachers and others may work much harder, and for less. The system is screwed up. I'll admit that.
Still I guess I figure more that I get paid "too much" than teachers and others get paid too little. I figure things are sliding downhill, and better to spend your energy learning to need less than to fight for more in a shrinking pie.
Easy for me to say, with an unfair share. I'm guilty, and I can only defend myself to say I try not to be corrupted by what I have. I'm not saving for tickets on Spaceship One flights into space, or buying a vacation home in the Bahamas - I'm just trying to get out of debt like everyone else (who is wise), and hope if I lose my job or high income, I'll be better off later for my savings now.
I think the union leaders ought to swallow their pride and say they were wrong. The University wins BECAUSE they are willing to stand on brute economic reality - the workers are already ahead from successes past, and ought to just accept there's no fairness, and 1% ain't worth fighting over.
I'm a bad bad person, but I hate fighting!
Postscript:
My opinions above, however true doesn't solve any of the REAL problems, of workers feeling valued. It's a classic "If you loved me, you'd give me..." ultimatum/test, and once YOU make such a demand, you're setting yourself up for rejection, BUT if you really are valued, THEN what does a less than heartless employer do? Can they do ANYTHING once the strike had started to change the question?
Perhaps we still live in the dark ages, where ruthless, heartless employers exploit workers for pennies just because they can get away with it, and perhaps unions really are the heroes of modern workers who want a "fair offer".
I'm with my friend anyway in heart - labor negociations are POISON to the human soul, and there may be no good answers.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm just as over-sensitive as ANYONE, and WISE people can and do "let go" of conflict, and stop seeing others as the enemy, once the conflict is resolved. Things can heal, but the "victim" has most of the power there. I mean if I hurt you, you need to tell me what I can do to make things better, and I'll try. I'm not going to throw flowers at you until you finally decide to forgive me.
So I wonder, if a 1% additional raise is outside of the workers reach, WHAT do they really want? What will show them they're valued, besides that? If a job is JUST about money, I guess NOTHING. If it's just about power, I guess nothing.
It just sucks for me, and I know I'm blind and dumb in human relations, and my ego stands in the way as much as anyone. I'd rather sit in prison, than have a job where I'm not wanted for anything more than my productivity.
She's happily gone from the University, but once again, the workers are striking, day 14 now. The issue is apparently one of "fairness", principle over reality. Workers want a FULL cost-of-living raise, one apparently approved for by state funding AND given to other U workers, while the U administration apparently have some excuse against this (assuming comparisons to "fair market wages" for similar jobs) and apparently claim they can get by just fine without the workers on strike. The U must figure a 1% difference is too small to keep workers on the picket lines.
My failure in 2003 was to suggest that workers unsatisified by their wages are better off just quitting than sitting around demanding what isn't given freely. Well, I didn't say it so coldly, but not much better. It's my "self-defense" against a cruel world, my ego wants to be above power struggles, BUT easy for me to say when I've never negociated a salary level in my life - just accepted whatever was offered, AND never felt shorted. I've wondered at times, hearing higher salaries from others, whether I could make more, but I'll trade flexibility of a small company over higher income. Plus, I've always earned over twice what I ever needed. So I'm spoiled and a hopeless person to get sympathy from.
I lean towards the same conclusion again for U workers. I think they've probably got it pretty good (compared to other options) OR they'd not stay! The only way to get higher wages is to REDUCE the supply of workers willing to do the work. THEREFORE those who can afford to go elsewhere (and get paid LESS perhaps) can do a favor for those remaining, who will then be in higher demand. Well, so my outrageous theory goes.
The whole power game outrages me still, the idea that workers have to fight for fair wages. I don't like unions either, full of leaders who are more interested in glory than letting their members contribute work as they can. YES YES, I know "Solidarity for fair wages" and all that, but how much here is EGO?! There's no "fair", there's only the reality of supply and demand.
I am outraged that people like me can make good money punching out computer programs, while teachers and others may work much harder, and for less. The system is screwed up. I'll admit that.
Still I guess I figure more that I get paid "too much" than teachers and others get paid too little. I figure things are sliding downhill, and better to spend your energy learning to need less than to fight for more in a shrinking pie.
Easy for me to say, with an unfair share. I'm guilty, and I can only defend myself to say I try not to be corrupted by what I have. I'm not saving for tickets on Spaceship One flights into space, or buying a vacation home in the Bahamas - I'm just trying to get out of debt like everyone else (who is wise), and hope if I lose my job or high income, I'll be better off later for my savings now.
I think the union leaders ought to swallow their pride and say they were wrong. The University wins BECAUSE they are willing to stand on brute economic reality - the workers are already ahead from successes past, and ought to just accept there's no fairness, and 1% ain't worth fighting over.
I'm a bad bad person, but I hate fighting!
Postscript:
My opinions above, however true doesn't solve any of the REAL problems, of workers feeling valued. It's a classic "If you loved me, you'd give me..." ultimatum/test, and once YOU make such a demand, you're setting yourself up for rejection, BUT if you really are valued, THEN what does a less than heartless employer do? Can they do ANYTHING once the strike had started to change the question?
Perhaps we still live in the dark ages, where ruthless, heartless employers exploit workers for pennies just because they can get away with it, and perhaps unions really are the heroes of modern workers who want a "fair offer".
I'm with my friend anyway in heart - labor negociations are POISON to the human soul, and there may be no good answers.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm just as over-sensitive as ANYONE, and WISE people can and do "let go" of conflict, and stop seeing others as the enemy, once the conflict is resolved. Things can heal, but the "victim" has most of the power there. I mean if I hurt you, you need to tell me what I can do to make things better, and I'll try. I'm not going to throw flowers at you until you finally decide to forgive me.
So I wonder, if a 1% additional raise is outside of the workers reach, WHAT do they really want? What will show them they're valued, besides that? If a job is JUST about money, I guess NOTHING. If it's just about power, I guess nothing.
It just sucks for me, and I know I'm blind and dumb in human relations, and my ego stands in the way as much as anyone. I'd rather sit in prison, than have a job where I'm not wanted for anything more than my productivity.
posted by Ares Olympus at 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home