And that is what a union is , mafia 101 !Originally Posted by Renton
I am. Practically speaking, in a situation where there are multiple employers in need of such a person, that person should be able to bargain for a competitive wage.
But even if it were a monopoly and only one company in town wanted him, it is still difficult for that company to rip him off because of substitution. For example, if the sole person has a skill which can be applied to other trades, then substituting employers have need of him. In a well developed free market this causes kind of a barrier against exploitative wages ever emerging.
This concept can be seen in the united states by the fact that, by default, a person's time is worth 7-10 dollars an hour. No skills, no nothing. Just based on the supply of labor next to the demand for it, 7 to 10 dollars. There are engineers in Cambodia that make like 2-3 dollars an hour, people with years of university education and internships on top. Basically as an economy emerges and develops, a sort of natural minimum wage develops. Ever notice how almost no one gets paid the minimum wage in America after it hasn't been raised for a while? Before the jump to 7.25, very few people made 5.15 an hour. McDonald's and other salaries were often over 6. I made 5.50 at the movie theater. A low minimum wage is effectively no minimum wage, so that's why you never see rightwingers demanding a repeal of the minimum wage, if they're smart they know that the best way not to have one is not to update the old one.
I got off track here, but to answer your question, the only unnaturally large power that disrupts the employer/employee bargaining relationship is government. Or really any coercive body. It could just be a big gangster dude that threatens either of them with a baseball bat if they don't pay/accept the wage.
Reply With Quote