Because my productivity is likely to plateau (or worse!) after 40 hours
*AND* because my time is all I have, it is a good use of prices as signals
for me as an individual to set my over-40-hrs rate higher. Either in
dollars, or in other compensation.
This doesn't mean that the Gummit should step in, but collective bargaining
is not against free market principles. If the competent labor pool is in
short supply, the purchasers of my services will have to meet my terms or
do without me. Couldn't be fairer.
At 11:00 PM 2/27/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>James Rogers wrote:
>
>> Why does a person's labor become suddenly more valuable after 40hrs/week?
>> As far as I can tell, it doesn't and therefore should not receive
>> compensation above the usual. If at some point you feel that your work is
>> not being fairly compensated, you can complain, stop working, or quit.
>> Making unusual compensation compulsory after a certain number of hours is
>> unwarranted interference.
>
>I think your missing a very important point here. Regardless of what is fair
>compensation or not, the fact remains that the company has *taken away* money
>from a more a powerful group. Because companies need IT workers more than IT
>workers need that company, why haven't IT workers realized that they are the
>ones who really have the power? You would think, that based on the IT
shortage
>trends, that IT workers would counter any company plot to exploit them.
Those
>with the testicles in their hands control those who own those testicles. It
>just makes plain economic and political sense.
>
>Paul Hughes
>
>
>
"The highest love [is] uniquely human,
the product of compassion and liberty;
not one at the expense of the other."
-- L. A. Chu and M. M. Butler
(RU a bot? If not, be advised *s are flagged as 'net address ERRORS;
MY address is thus munged. Kindly hyphenate. "Go team, beat SP*M.")