What puzzles me now is to hear the claims that "exhorbitant" union wages/benefits are what have made the U.S. labor market unable to compete. Interesting how the same people who make that claim also tend to see no problem with the huge levels of compensation provided to upper corporate management, including companies that are struggling mightily with debt and loss of market share.
How does anyone come to both of these conclusions in the same brain: 1) Fifty thousand dollars/year is too much to pay an auto factory line worker. 2) The corporate head of that same company is not paid too much when making many millions of dollars per year, and deserves the million dollar bonus he receives for cutting thousands of factory worker jobs and "saving the company money." ??
Yet, I hear ppl making both of those statements. Personally, I think there must be a potential CEO in another country somewhere who would be happy to make 5% of what that American CEO receives for sending jobs out of the country and still running that company into the ground. Why is "global competition" good enough for the average worker . . but is not just as applicable to top management?
|