> I’ll answer your question with a question, how do you measure productivity? What percentage of productivity is contributed by labor, and what percentage by capital? We’re going to need this number if we are to answer your question anyway.
I personally don't really object to being paid the same as everyone who shares my job title and does substantially the same job as me, provided we're all making the same (and proportionate to hours worked). This was based on your statement that 'I do think its better to earn your own wage rather than an average of all wages. After all I contribute my own productivity, I don’t contribute some average negotiated productivity.'
> That seems reasonable. I think Jack Welch had a similar policy.
For a lot of people, that doesn't seem reasonable at all, but ultimately, you are entitled to your opinion. If you have first-hand experience working in a fulfillment centre and your opinion is that these stories aren't representative, then I will bow to your experience.
> You said you’re on the same team and have the same interests. If you have the same interests why do you have separate bank accounts?
Can we skip past the point where you try to get me to say something and move to the counterpoint you're trying to set up? The original statement was not me, actually, but in case it's one of the below, then I'm not arguing, but feel free to add what you need to make your point:
- if one person 'earns more' then they should have the right to 'spend more'
- if you want to spend your money differently to someone else then you don't have the same interests
- how I spend my money shouldn't be dictated by other people (with provisos around tax, etc.)
From my perspective though, the main point that I wanted to raise with you was the first one, that no-one is being forced to join, and no-one is losing any right to negotiate individually, so why shouldn't the people who want to unionise be allowed to do so?