Dan Krueger wrote:

"Collective bargaining" says it all. The individual either can't think
for himself or can't earn his own wage on his own merit. He has to be
grouped with a variety of worker - good and bad - to get the same pay,
the same raises, the same treatment, etc.

Still sad.

"Collective bargaining" is the only means by which the worker can even
begin to establish a level playing field. Now, there are folks who
don't think anybody except the guy with capital invested in a private
company has any right to any sort of fair or equitable
business/employment climate and that such a capital investment grants a
license to exploit any and all dumb or desperate enough to work for
the firm- and those who feel that way are entitled to do so.

Otherwise, the power of the employer to withhold pay is merely offset
by the power of the collective bargainers to withhold services. Seems
pretty fair to me. One side uses every trick in the book to pay as
little as it can get by with, and the other uses every trick in the
book to get paid as much as it possibly can. Yup, that's fair. Not
exclusively advantageous to management and capital- but fair.

Without collective bargaining, it is the employer, not the worker, who
ignores merit and does not differentiate between good and bad workers.
Without collective bargaining, everybody's job is constantly at risk if
some guy happens along who will whore out for a buck an hour less.

If an employer is paying a decent wage, he has a right to demand
excellence. If an employer is paying dog-crap wages, he isn't going to
attract many workers who will hang around long enough to distinguish
themselves from the herd by virtue of outstanding productivity or
efficiency, and a lot of the guys paying dog-crap wages really aren't
interested in finding the most cost efficient employees but rather just
the lowest cost employees.