Sounds like he wants union work, then, with the benefits (such as complete wage transparency and information clarify) but also the detriments (lobsters in a pot pulling each other down, impossible to exceed the boundaries of a position).
I don't want union work. When I hear people whine and bitch because they think they're worth as much as other employees...I don't know but it really makes me dislike them. I despise that mentality. Someone else negotiated better than you -- suck it up, crybaby.
He learned new market information, negotiated the cost of his services (not re-negging because it's at-will employment), and when he couldn't strike a deal, he did so with another party. This is the free-market at work, while you are going on a non-sequitur political rant that doesn't make any sense since what he did is pretty much the opposite of unionizing.
The piece is at its core a whiny complaint, complaining of grievous injustice. That you try to explain it away as simple market forces is truly laughable. Yes, the attitude expressed in the piece is the foundation of unionization.
If the problem was that he wasn't as good as the other employee, the boss could say that. (The boss could say it even if it wasn't true.) The boss pretends on one hand to be locked in by bureaucracy when he doesn't want to do something, but they aren't really stopping him.
Anyway, it seems he is negotiating a better salary. The boss refused to deal so he walked. Good.
Comments
Sounds like he wants union work, then, with the benefits (such as complete wage transparency and information clarify) but also the detriments (lobsters in a pot pulling each other down, impossible to exceed the boundaries of a position).
I don't want union work. When I hear people whine and bitch because they think they're worth as much as other employees...I don't know but it really makes me dislike them. I despise that mentality. Someone else negotiated better than you -- suck it up, crybaby.
He learned new market information, negotiated the cost of his services (not re-negging because it's at-will employment), and when he couldn't strike a deal, he did so with another party. This is the free-market at work, while you are going on a non-sequitur political rant that doesn't make any sense since what he did is pretty much the opposite of unionizing.
Political rant?
The piece is at its core a whiny complaint, complaining of grievous injustice. That you try to explain it away as simple market forces is truly laughable. Yes, the attitude expressed in the piece is the foundation of unionization.
If the problem was that he wasn't as good as the other employee, the boss could say that. (The boss could say it even if it wasn't true.) The boss pretends on one hand to be locked in by bureaucracy when he doesn't want to do something, but they aren't really stopping him.
Anyway, it seems he is negotiating a better salary. The boss refused to deal so he walked. Good.
He didn't "whine and bitch". He quit.