The Game between Boss and Employee —— A Deep Interpretation of Economics

The last article talked about the level of wages and the rhythm of income. This article looks at the relationship between workers and capitalists with a magnifying glass. The theme is whether breach of contract should become the basic right of workers. As mentioned above, labor is more likely to bully capital, because capital lacks real-time supervision, capitalists can't stay with capital at any time, and labor can freely control output and quality.

A classic case is the Alaska fishing case, which says that the company has a fishing boat and employs a group of fishermen to catch salmon. The agreed salary is $60. When we arrived in Alaska, the workers demanded an increase of 40 dollars. Salmon was in season, and the ship couldn't turn back, so the manager agreed. After returning to shore, the company refused to accept payment and was only willing to pay 60 dollars. Fishermen took the company to court.

The 40 yuan promised by the manager is a reward, and there is no so-called consideration, which is the worker's salary. The labor promised by the workers and the contract of 60 dollars form a consideration, which is enough to pay the labor remuneration.

Because there is no consideration, workers do not provide services. This one-way gift is not legally binding. The court held that there was no corresponding consideration for $40, and there was no unreasonable constraint, so the company did not need to pay it.

But one more thing, that is, the manager could have kept his mouth shut and set sail for home. Wouldn't it be better to renegotiate the terms If the company does not agree, and the fishermen have breached the contract and caused losses, they can sue the fishermen. It seems possible, but in fact, even if the case is won, the fishermen can't afford the compensation. In China's words, dead mice don't feel cold.

When workers come forward and rip off temporarily, it is usually the boss or capitalist who suffers. In fact, this is normal, fishing boats go out to sea, and fishermen temporarily ask for a raise; When the grapes are ripe and harvested, the workers go on strike; When the students arrived in the classroom, the teacher asked for a raise.

Of course, at the beginning, the boss may be very helpless and can only raise his salary. However, there are countermeasures. He will tell other fishermen to be careful of this ripped-off fisherman. If he comes again, you can make it up. Teachers and workers are the same. The boss will say that if you are ripped off again, you won't be needed next time.

Another way for American bosses to respond is to add a "I won't go on strike" clause to the contract. Workers can choose whether there is a contract or not. There will be candidates because the needs are different. When someone chooses my no strike clause, the boss will pay more money as insurance.

As long as the court agrees, employers can avoid being ripped off by workers through contracts. Of course, some people look down on it and call it the "yellow dog treaty", which means cowardice. It sounds disgraceful, but it has played a positive role in preventing temporary plagiarism.

Question: Should workers have the right to strike in the face of capitalists? If not, how can workers' rights be protected? If there are capitalists, how can the rights be guaranteed?

Of course, it is very difficult to coordinate labor relations. The correct direction should be to increase communication, understanding and mutual trust, and minimize the harm caused by uncertain behavior to enterprises. Because if the resources of the enterprise are not guaranteed, the value of the enterprise will decline, and the people related to the enterprise will eventually suffer.

What is a strike? No job? That's called absenteeism. Everyone agreed not to work together. That's called collective absenteeism. If you write to your boss every day asking for a raise, it's just asking for a raise; If it is agreed to write to the boss together to raise wages, it is called a collective demand for higher wages, not a strike.

What is a strike? One is to ask for a raise at a critical moment, which is called a rip-off; The other is to stop others from working when they are not working. This is called a strike. Therefore, economists describe the strike in western society as follows: trade unions are just a cartel, which obtains wages higher than the competitive market by limiting the labor supply of companies and enterprises.

Cartel is an organization that colludes with monopoly, but the later anti-monopoly law has an Amnesty, saying that trade union organizations are not within the scope of anti-monopoly law because the labor force is special. In American history, the right to strike was confirmed by Wagner Act of 1935.

It is a bit excessive to stipulate that people who have not joined the guild should also have representatives and participate in group activities. 1947 passed the labor rights and interests law, stating that workers have the right to work and prohibiting trade unions from forcing non-union personnel to participate in strikes. This is the first characteristic of a strike, which is either ripped off or violent.

The second is the economic consequences. Scholars have found that workers who have trade unions and can strike have higher incomes. The conclusion is that strikes can help workers improve their bargaining power and increase their income. It seems to contradict the law of "the worker's salary, the reward he gets for any kind of resources in the team, and his marginal contribution to the team"

As long as you go on strike, rip off temporarily, and stop others from replacing yourself through violence, you can increase your income. Why? Here we should pay attention to the increase of local income and the price paid by the whole workers. There is a difference between the two. In the short term, the boss has no choice but to pay a high salary.

But in the long run, the boss will reduce the number of employees and increase the investment in machinery. Generally speaking, the increase of some people's income is based on the decline or disappearance of others' income, such as bosses, consumers and other workers.

If joining a trade union will increase your income, will you join? There are benefits to joining, but the benefits will be diluted with the increase of the number of people. Therefore, if trade unions want to maintain high income, the key is to prevent too many outsiders from entering and set a threshold. In the past, the simple method was to look at the skin color on the product and the marks made by hand.

But it doesn't seem to work today. I still have to do it for the benefit. What should I do? The most common thing is to implement the industry qualification licensing system, which requires examinations, the difficulty coefficient is getting higher and higher, and fewer and fewer people pass.

This has brought economic consequences. Strikes can indeed increase the income of some people who have joined the trade union or obtained permission, but they will cause losses to others, such as bosses, investors, consumers or those who are unemployed. We should not only see the increase of local income, but also see the loss of overall income.

The third feature is the counter-effect of the strike. Strikes should have helped workers get higher incomes, but in the long run, places that love strikes are places where productivity declines because they violate the principle of cooperation and the principle that "the return due to each factor of production should match its marginal output".

Question: Is it easier to find a job in a country where strikes are frequent or in a country where strikes are infrequent?

When thinking about problems, always remember to take other people's countermeasures into account. A country often goes on strike, and the labor cost increases sharply. Enterprises are expected to reduce the number of employees, find substitutes, or even stop production. In such a country, it is more difficult for workers to find jobs.

Thank you for your appreciation. My personal ability is limited. Please leave a comment. The viewpoint comes from Xue Zhaofeng's economics course.