[CAUT] Position Announcement, SIU, Carbondale, IL

[Jeff Tanner]

So, what you're saying, Ed, is that it is ok for the employers to band 
together, to gather information from each other to set salaries based on 
what other employers pay, but that the employee has no similar rights? 
You're saying that we are powerless to say "NO" to a certain salary level 
that may insult our peers.  That we are prohibited from educating ourselves 
and others to the hiring process and how to bargain for as much as you can 
at the negotiation table?

How then, can companies legally have sales seminars to teach sales people 
how to maximize their numbers and profit margins?

We are a guild.  Over the years, the purpose of Guilds has been just that: 
to band together.  Many Guilds serve the same function as unions.

I understand your perspective: as a self-employed business entity, you are 
correct.  A group of businesses cannot bind together to manipulate the 
market.

But as "employees", is it in fact illegal to work together to educate one 
another?  To educate one another to realize the reality that the salary you 
accept in Illinois will become a part of a VERY ORGANIZED system that 
determines the salary of another ISOLATED employee in Tennessee?  That that 
very organized system of employers is organized just for the single purpose 
of doing what you're saying is illegal: manipulating the market?  Is it 
illegal to encourage others in our profession to not be scared you won't get 
the job if you say "no" to the salary below the level you can live with?

If that is indeed true, we're screwed.

I very much disagree that ours is a case of simple market economics.  It is 
a market based on one-sided information - the employer's side.  It is a 
market based much on false and misleading information and ignorance.

If there is indeed a case of simple market economics, it might just be that 
the group of technicians who expect to be well compensated for their 
training and skills just isn't applying for these jobs.

Tanner



>     Umm, there is no "we" involved here. There is a market for labor, and
> there is a supply, that is where the determination of pay is decided, 
> i.e.,
> there are very few people capable of being CEO's of international 
> corporations and
> those jobs pay what they must due to this scarcity.
>     Actually, to "stand up together to it, against it, whatever it takes" 
> is
> criminal activity.  When "we" band together, and suggest what everyone 
> should
> charge, or even that everybody should charge more, "we" are guilty of a
> federal crime, (price fixing, restraint of trade, and/or collusion).  Help
> yourself, but leave me out of it.
>   The market will determine the value, and if the field gets crowded, the
> pay will go down.  That is simple market economics.  To suggest we 
> organize any
> activity to force the employers to pay more is a crime.  I do suggest 
> caution.
>
>
>
>
> Ed Foote RPT
> http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> <BR><BR><BR>**************<BR>Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and 
> fits
> in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.<BR>
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-Volkswagen-Jetta-2009/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00030000000007 
>  )</HTML>
>