"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Andy Hall aka Matt contains these words:

Sorry, but the boot should be on the other foot. The employee
should be positioning himself such that he is sufficiently attractive
to the employer in terms of what he offers and can negotiate for
himself.

Spoken like a true capitalist. The better each employee gets the more
profit the capitalist can get for the same outlay in wages.

I make no apology for being a capitalist - it's the one sustainable
approach to economics.

However, at no point did I say anything about equal wages. The point
is that an effective employee should also be able to command a higher
price.

Matt, do you mean a creep of an employee? Yes you do. You think creeps are
a good thing. I can't stand creeps.

The effective employee can only
command a higher wage if he has
something unique to offer.

Or is a creep.

If all the employees are equally effective it
doesn't matter how good they are, the
employer can always afford to dispose
of the one who who wants the most.
There will be plenty more willing to work
for less when they see what happened to the one that
asked for more.

For employees with no special talents there is no choice. The do a job
that literally millions of others could do equally well. The doctrine
that senior managers should be motivated by money and workers by fear of
the sack is a pernicious one but one that is widely followed by those
who are very well rewarded whether they are a success or failure. Senior
managers in the major British companies may no longer own much of the
equity but they still control the levers of power and will reward
themselves handsomely whatever the outcome.

Roger that was very good.

Sigh.... There should not *be* a conflict. The employee wants to
sell a service that the employer should want to buy. It doesn't
need to involve a third party.

There is a clear conflict of interest and as long as the employer can
dispense with employees one at a time the dice is unfairly loaded in his
favour. Only if the workforce can speak with one voice can negotiations
take place on equal terms.

Roger that was very good.

There was a third way. The government could have prevented the dash of
gas. That would have slowed the decline of the industry. It was
shortsighted in the extreme to let that resource be wasted in the way it
has been leaving the country at the mercy of foreign suppliers who may
well hold us to ransom in the future.

Roger that was very good. Riger you laced Matt.