The American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees’ attempt to scare the University of California and
students by threatening a strike is laughable. Not only are its
demands irrational and undeserved, but its demented policies would
actually hurt the very workers it claims to represent.
With cries that they need ““ and therefore deserve ““
more money, the UC workers who protest the “horrendous”
working conditions here reveal their lack of knowledge of both
economics and work ethics.
“I can’t make it on this salary,” said one
dining services employee in a March 10 Daily Bruin article. This
claim, like others I’ve seen made by the strikers,
presupposes a major fallacy: that a job is merely an excuse for an
employer to hand out money, and that the amount of money handed out
is based on the “needs” of the worker.
The quoted worker based her claim of need for a higher wage on
the fact that she has three children. As with similar claims made
by other workers, no case is ever made for having earned higher
pay, but rather for being in circumstances which require it.
Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to the workers’ cause
if their requests for higher pay were grounded in job performance
and productivity, but this is apparently too lofty an
expectation.
What exactly determines a worker’s “needs”
anyway? Most working students have far fewer expenses than single
moms with three children. Does this disparity in home life compel
an equal disparity in wage? “Of course!” the strikers
seem to say. “To do otherwise would be unfair!”
By the protesters’ philosophy, two people doing the exact
same job the exact same way should earn two different wages simply
because one has more day-to-day expenses than the other.
When pay is based on how many children you have to support
rather than how well you do your job, performance is guaranteed to
slack. When hard work isn’t required for good pay,
there’s no reason to apply yourself. The strikers’
demands, then, are not only illogical, but also harmful to
themselves and the customers they serve.
But arbitrary “needs” are not the end of the
strikers’ grievances. They are not given the opportunity to
advance in the workplace, they claim. As with their nonsensical
position of wages based on need, this complaint also bears no
correlation to reality. Career advancement, like wage increases, is
something that is earned, not an automatic handout.
There are only so many upper-level positions to advance to.
Because the UC wants to be as successful as possible, it hires the
best candidates for those jobs. Not everyone is qualified to
advance, and, if everyone was qualified, there wouldn’t even
be enough spots for everyone to advance!
Demanding the impossible from the UC does little for the
strikers other than give yet another example of their
shortsightedness. The system they seem to be asking for promotes
advancement based on how long you’ve worked, not how well
you’ve worked. This not only fails to motivate current
employees to be their best, but also discourages new employees: No
matter hard they work or how well they do, their pay and
advancement would be based on their “needs” and tenure,
not productivity and merit.
UC students already are burdened with high fees. Giving in to
the ridiculous demands of the strikers exacerbates the problem and
harms workers’ abilities and motivation to earn job success
rather than merely be handed token alms.
Hurst is a first-year chemical engineering student. He is
also the vice chair of L.O.G.I.C. and a former Bruin
columnist.