First of all, of course, one must define underpaying and mistreating. Mistreating generally isn't so hard to define, except on the fringes. But what is underpaying? If the prevailing wage in a country is 50 cents an hour, is it underpaying workers to pay them that? Suppose a US company goes into an area where there is 30% unemployment and no unemployment insurance program. Is ANYTHING underpaying the workers they employ? Aren't the workers better off with whatever they get, than with nothing? Is it underpaying those workers if the company pays them $1.00 an hour to perform essentially the same task that workers in the US get $11.00 an hour to perform? But what wouldn't be underpaying in that case? Should the US company be expected to pay $11 per hour in the other country? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the work in the US, in which case the workers are worse off than if they had their $1.00 per hour jobs?
In an area where unemployment is high, certainly the employer has a lot of power to negotiate wages down. OTOH, in an area where unemployment is very low, the workers have the ability to negotiate much higher wages. If the first is wrong, is the second also? Should computer programmers in Silicon Valley (make this two years ago!) not have been allowed to negotiate for the highest pay they could get when there was a big scarcity of programmers? If it was okay for the workers to hold out for as much as they can get, why is it wrong for the company to hold out for as little as they can pay?
And we come back to the question, what is underpaying, and why should a company be required to pay more than a worker is willing to work for? |
