To The Valley News:
Off the Wall: Don't you just love that cartoon of a Simon Lagree type employer, as if in today's world (or even yesterday's for that mater) with all the minute by minute contacts with current technology, there could be anyone out there who would be unaware? Think about a tyrant for an employer for just a second (it shouldn't take more than that) and just how successful a business could be run with at best a perpetual employee turnover, if indeed one could be hired by a Lagree type character.
On the other hand: If I wish to hire someone to do some work for me (in the house or around the property), one would think that the two parties involved (that is me and who ever presents him/herself for the job) could freely conduct a conversation about what the job entails and the value (translate: what I would be willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept to do the job).
Size of a company should not matter; do we not all have the inherent right to that negotiation, to be competitive in the market place of labor? If you question that, let me ask all those union laborers out there just what they pay, for example, someone for yard work? What do they pay someone for cleaning their house? Is it equal to union pay and benefits for custodial staff at say, the school, or the hospital, or (you fill in the blank)? If one is so adamant that they should receive union wages and benefits, should that not apply to what they pay out for goods and services, that is if they are really sincere? Or, is that merely a one way street?
By your works you shall be known.
Susan C. Sherman, Westport