SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: surfbaron who wrote (7816)10/5/2002 6:28:40 AM
From: habitrail  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
>>you say others are more deserving of higher pay<<

Did I? Go read it again.

Also, if you could be so kind as to cut the histrionics and answer my original question which I will rephrase:

What special skill do longshoremen have, besides belonging to a union, that merits a pay of 100K/year?

You said, somewhat condescendingly, "habby: maybe just maybe because they bust their butts"

From what I can discern above, it sounds like you think that salaries are based solely on hard work. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Lettuce Pickers work very hard, but do not attain 100K/year.

>>"now you want to tell people what they should earn"<<

You hint that salaries are based on simple laws of supply/demand. I consider this shaky ground to argue from since unions were originally created to force salaries above the rock-bottom levels the market had dictated.

To qcoman, you stated:
>>"a person has ... the right to get paid what they can contract with another in a legal setting"<<

Well, that nice and everything, but once a union gets involved, things get more complicated. Unions basically shake down their corporate hosts periodically for more money by threatening or staging work slowdows and strikes. These sort of activities are in violation of any employment contract I ever saw.

If I don't like my pay, I have to go find a new job, why should longshoremen be any different?