[quote=Leorocky]The balance of power for the employee is simple – it’s called a skill. The more skilled you are the higher your wage – right? People who work at Wal-Mart are largely unskilled. $9/hr (or whatever the wage is) is certainly fair. I have no problem with Wal-Mart’s workers organizing and asking for higher wages etc but Wal-Mart shouldn’t have to make any concessions if they don’t feel it’s in the best interest of the business. In Wal-Mart’s case their selling point is low prices, not customer service or quickly stocked shelves or good looking employees. There are tens of millions of people qualified to work at Wal-Mart in this country. Why would Wal-Mart raise wages when they could easily replace their employees?
Our government has required that employers bargain with unions – based on everything you’ve said so far it sounds like you’d agree this is anti “free market”? Now if people came to Walmart to see Dick, Jane and Harry or if those employees were somehow vital to Wal-Mart’s success you’d see Walmart bending over backwards to keep them happy – same thing you see with more skilled and highly skilled workers.
And I hope you are not suggesting that if government benefits somehow disappeared tomorrow that Wal-Mart would be forced to pay a higher wage. That is not the case, but again it would be more like the “free market” you seem to want.[/quote]
A single, individual employee has almost no leverage against corporations. The ratio of employees to employers is too large. An employer can easily pass over an employee because there will be a long line of others behind him to do the job if each employee is acting alone; but an employee cannot easily pass over a job opportunity, both because his options are limited by the number of employers, and because his life depends on it. It is only when employees join forces that they are able to adequately negotiate fair compensation.
As for the quaint notion that it’s all about “skills,” there are many very highly skilled/educated workers who make far, far less than others who are less skilled. A person’s compensation is more due to their proximity to the control of funds than whether or not they have “skills,” especially at the higher end of the compensation spectrum. A person who dictates where the money goes is much more likely to give himself a greater portion of those funds. It has very little to do with skill sets. In our country, those in the financial sector and management tend to make the most money. Exactly what “skills” do they bring to the table? Why are they often paid more than physicists, neurobiologists, etc.?
And I’m not necessarily advocating for or against a free market. Personally, I think we should have a free market for wants, and socialism for needs. I’m just pointing out the naivete of those who say that our labor/employment market is a “free market.” It is not.
BTW, what do you think would happen if Walmart’s workers didn’t have social programs to fall back on? Either Walmart would have to raise wages, or crime (especially against the wealthy) would rise dramatically. Welfare is for the rich, not the poor.
