UAW is on strike and there are others that have been on strike as well (i.e. writers). I'm not going to profess whether its good or bad because that depends on outcomes and the broadness of the benefits thereof. The EV market is growing in MI and we have concerns over wealth distribution outcomes. What I am going to say is much of that depends on the short and long term impact. Raising wages is a good thing as long as national industry competitiveness rises and output grows; not neglecting pay disparity issues. In the meantime we can watch the events unfold and listen to the intellectuals debate its significance to workers, business and the economy.
To me raising worker value and productivity through education, training, and technology implementation should come with significant increases in compensation to balance out wage disparities. If industry competitiveness and compensation rises so should the broad benefits to society. In other words we have to become more competitive through human capital development and need the incentives that encourages broader based economic engagement. The disagreement seems to be more market driven as a factor of shifting underlining economic assumptions that require a touch of evolutionary economics to master.
 |
| The Strike Robert Koehler 1886 Striking Scenes |
One might consider a more capitalistic fluid approach of base compensation that rises quickly when people learn more skills and are able to fully utilize their skills on the job. Assuming the structure of the organization allows for that. If not we might need to rethink some things as adaptable organizations should not be defined only by past structures. Invent an improvement share in the benefits, learn a new skill and get paid more, so on and so forth to improve employee engagement in company success. One could also consider company improvements from labor generated ideas having a large percentage going back to labor for their contribution to the whole. Developing Human Capital to Support U.S. Innovation Capacity
Union membership has declined and companies have complained changes are difficult but perhaps it is a chance to rethink some middle ground. Union membership might rise in the future as people feel pressure to make sure they are getting some of the cake. Many of these debates are based in historical anchoring in an argument seen as a battle between labor and wealthy. It should be more anchored in total system improvement that encourages personal and company growth as one method of enhancing both. While they may not see it, they are in the same big pot (except the ultra wealthy that might move to the Cayman Islands or something.)
This very well might be a sign of broader market changes where people seek out more opportunities and compensation that goes with increased competitiveness. The key words are increased competitiveness of the industry through labor enhancements. You can read more about the skilled labor shortage in world's second best paper Marquette Mining Journal (after Escanaba Daily Press and then followed in third place by big name paper brands i.e. Bloomsburg, NY Times, so on and so forth...🙏 ).
Sorry the article.....I digress......Skilled Labor Shortage.
My personal opinion is that its not politics but more a factor of market changes. We will have to see how it turns out. Do I have the answers? Nope! I hope that our nation wins and everything moves upward in a net positive. What do you think would help companies, industry, employee and nation (not in any particular order)? Its probably unconventional to think win-win but that might also be why I don't get paid the big bucks. :)
Side note...I worked in skilled labor and management so I understand the basics of central ideas of both. No one put a silver spoon in my mouth. Hyper politics sucks but people are awesome (most anyway) American born and bred! 💁
No comments:
Post a Comment