"650 jobs go in Alinta's merger push on AGL"
| Thinking Lateral |
|---|
| Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com |
In the front pages of the paper are regular attacks on union members. Hidden in the business section is a casual mention that 650 people will be sacked. What's the difference? One is union members using muscle, the other is simply fallout from a business decision. Don't get me wrong: I dislike the bullying tactics of unions and union leaders. They are an essential part of our society but they often overplay their role... they often abuse their power. So why are they essential? To protect the little cogs at the bottom, the powerless wage slaves... the "workers". What can one person do when employed by a large company? One person can shut up or ship out, as simple as that. What can a large union do, for its members employed by a large company? It can negotiate -- using whatever negotiating power it has. What negotiating power does a union have? It has the labour provided by union members, labour that may be provided or not provided. That is the sole basis of union power: the ability to cause all of its members to no longer provide labour. I strongly support the right of unions to withdraw labour... to go on strike. On the other hand I see no reason why striking workers should be paid by the employer. Nor do I see any justification for fining union members who go on strike -- as long as they are not drawing wages during the strike. Fining a worker for withdrawing labour removes the right of that person to choose whether or not to work. Remove that right and you have slavery.
Supply and demand
How can our rail workers get away with such demands? How have they managed to get such great working conditions while working on this one project? What are they really getting? Rail workers are employed on a project. A project has a limited life. What does that mean? It means, when the project is complete, the workers are out of work. End of project, end of employment, end of income. Project workers must earn enough on one project to live on until the next project. Will they get employment on the next project? Maybe... it depends on the employer. Will there be a next project? Maybe... that depends on the employer. Will they be paid at the same rates on the next project? Maybe... that depends on the employer -- and on the union. So union members live from project to project -- with no control over those projects. Why were these troublesome unionists employed at all? Because there was very little choice -- a big project needs all the workers it can get; there are a limited number of workers available in Perth. Can you really believe that a major company accepted a contract in Perth, did not understand the tight labour market, did not understand the law of supply and demand, expected to pay minimum wages and get a docile workforce?Oh dear, what can a poor company do?
There are rumours -- again, reported in The West -- that the company is looking for a tunnelling team in Sydney... sack the Perth workers, replace them with a team from Sydney. Right, sure, a team employed in Sydney will be cheaper... A team from a city with a higher cost of living, higher housing costs. A team which must be moved across Australia, a team that must be housed in Perth. Sure, that will be cheap, won't it! Oh, and none of the Sydney team will be union members, will they... It's really just a threat: work cheap or we'll replace you. As an aside, look at the ethics of this ploy: Did it really happen? Were there really advertisements in papers, calls to employment agents, interviews with prospective workers? Did the "potential employer" say to all these people, this is just a ploy, don't really expect to get a job... Or were all those people led by the nose... told there were great jobs soon to be available in Perth... were they lied to?Trust me -- I'm a large and well-established company...
A company must make a profit, that is its goal. Does it care for its employees? Only as far as necessary to ensure that a profit is made. Would a company give its employees a fair wage simply because that is the right thing to do? Ha ha ha. Back to Alinta: A merger with AGL looks like a good idea. 650 employees will be sacked? What a great way to save money -- let's do it! Would a rail-building contractor care for its employees? Well, yes -- enough to ensure that the work is done. Employees are a resource, an essential input to the project. As with any other project resource, cost must be kept to a minimum. That is the role of the company. Workers are a resource, no more important than concrete, steel, equipment, machinery... all these are project costs, and project costs must be kept as low as possible.| Independent Thinking |
|---|
| Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
Do employees deserve to get a fair wage? A wage that matches the booming economy of this state? No, not as far as the employer is concerned... and that is perfectly correct. The employer exists to make a profit. It will do that by minimising costs -- including labour -- and maximising its own prices. That's why unions are essential. Do you believe that human beings should live well in a booming economy? Who do you think will ensure a reasonable wage to support a good standard of living? Employers don't care -- nor should they. Who will fight for wages beyond the bare minimum? Who will see wages as a share of the economy -- not just a cost to be minimised? Unions. Unions fight to maximise wages. How they do it is often cause for concern. If they did not do it -- a lot of people would be a lot worse off.
No comments:
Post a Comment