From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 29 Jan 93 02:45:20 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k9qb3INN2ph@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>In article <1k80a5INN8s4@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU  writes:
>>>>
>>>That is not my point- if a employer is to have full decision making power over
>>>his business- then it is quite OK for him/her to discriminate at any given time.
>>>If for instance he decides that he doesn't like employee A, even though A's
>>>work is excellent, he can do things like, stop paying their health benefits or
>>>maybe reduce their salary at any given time.
>>
>>This is utter nonsense.  Would you go to work for someone who made
>>it clear that under the terms you were being hired your
>>compensation package could be changed at any time without advance
>>notice?  I doubt it.  Ans I doubt that many other would either.
>
>If you have the choice to do so.  But let us suppose that thise
>employer has the only job you can do.  That otherwise you will be
>working a McDonald's. What are you going to do?
>
>You tend look at the world from your position, where what you
>state may be true.  But it is not true for everyone.

Learn how to another job - and fast.

>The position that many of us may be in at the moment- can change,
>and very drastically, you can be laid off.  But are we sure that
>you have been laid off becuase of financial reasons, or maybe it
>is just hiding the real reasons.

Recognizing that things change (and "shit happens") is part of
living and every person should take that into account when planning
their life.  I was taught from childhood that no matter how little
money you have you should always save part of it.  I would consider
it criminally irresponsible to spend a penny of any paycheck before
putting at some of it awaying long term savings.  Yes, unexpected
things can happen, but it doesn't mean we're defenseless against
uncertainty.

>>Stability in our job situation is actually sometimes of greater
>>importance to us than the monetary value of the package.  Note that
>>unions spend a great deal more of their negotiating time over work
>>rule issues including the circumstances under which a union member
>>mnay be terminated.  And, of course, salasry and benefits can only
>>be changed as part of a newly negotiated contract.  Even exempt
>>personel are made promises ab out salary and benefits which are
>>covered in the writing in employer policy manuals.  An employer who
>>tried to change these policies without the notice promised in the
>>policies themse4lves would find themselves in court in short order.
>
>But, then what you are saying is that business X no longer has complete
>control and jurisdiction over their own business.  The business must
>compromise to the union in order to get people to work for them.

Very few people or organizations are in a position to completely
dictate the terms of an agreement with another person or
organization.  Being "in control" doesn't mean that you're
omnipotent, only that you are free to persue your interests without
outside coercion, that is, without somneone else dictating terms to
you under threat of force or robbing you of the ability to make a
full evaluation of your situation by lying to you.

>And then you mention court, again somewhere someone has made a
>concession, has suspended their rights in order to give someone
else something.

Sorry, I don't follow this at all.  Who has given up what right?

/June
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics