|
You guys are idiots and white collar workers are unionized in a buttload of western european nations. A professor pal of mine is a social scientist in germany and her contract is a union one. However, that is a situation where a corporatist model is basically forced on employers and employees to make them play nice together by the state.
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2014 04:30 |
|
|
# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:06 |
|
As far as I can tell public sector employees at most state universities can look up their colleagues' salaries for years and there hasn't been much kidney stabbing as a result of that.
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2014 22:38 |
|
Branman posted:For some reason people in D&D think that the only valid way to land a job is to submit anonymous applications online. Finding jobs through networking isn't a problem that needs to be stamped out. what happens when your network is blindingly racist and won't hire blacks? To quote Nancy DiTomaso, known communist and vice dean of Rutgers Business School: quote:Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2014 17:46 |
|
Interestingly in the past companies used a lot more psychometric testing when it came to hiring people:quote:By the end of World War II, however, American corporations were facing severe talent shortages. Their senior executives were growing old, and a dearth of hiring from the Depression through the war had resulted in a shortfall of able, well-trained managers. Finding people who had the potential to rise quickly through the ranks became an overriding preoccupation of American businesses. They began to devise a formal hiring-and-management system based in part on new studies of human behavior, and in part on military techniques developed during both world wars, when huge mobilization efforts and mass casualties created the need to get the right people into the right roles as efficiently as possible. By the 1950s, it was not unusual for companies to spend days with young applicants for professional jobs, conducting a battery of tests, all with an eye toward corner-office potential. “P&G picks its executive crop right out of college,” BusinessWeek noted in 1950, in the unmistakable patter of an age besotted with technocratic possibility. IQ tests, math tests, vocabulary tests, professional-aptitude tests, vocational-interest questionnaires, Rorschach tests, a host of other personality assessments, and even medical exams (who, after all, would want to hire a man who might die before the company’s investment in him was fully realized?)—all were used regularly by large companies in their quest to make the right hire.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2014 23:11 |
|
rscott posted:How is more information available in the labor market a bad thing, seriously I don't understand that. A market's efficiency relies on actors having as close to perfect information as possible right? Are we really supposed to believe that labor as a class, despite all of its' defeats in the last 35 years is manipulating this inefficiency to its' advantage? To me it seems far more likely that it's the other way around and that employers are using this lack of knowledge to their advantage, like the silicon valley collusion that was discovered recently. Because "free market" cheerleaders are actually just corporate shills or trolling
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 05:04 |
|
|
# ¿ May 22, 2024 10:06 |
|
VideoTapir posted:They could also be true believers who slept through the econ 101 they accuse everyone else of needing to take, with an added dose of libertarian definitions of "free" as in "Freedom." Like how can a market be free if you are not free to withhold information? Nah you only take what you want out of those econ 101 courses and ignore the rest. It's kind of like the Bible- there's enough red meat there to justify any agenda.
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 05:37 |