Hammer and Tongs
ALOKE THAKORE
When companies decide that they agree not to hire from their competitors, it is clear that they are forming a cartel designed to suppress wages
A complaint often heard about journalists and how greedy they have become, especially the younger lot, comes in the form of: He took the offer letter from us and then showed it to his present employers and then took double the hike. How unethical. And then there is the other one who took our offer letter, showed it to her bosses, got a hike, came back to us and then asked for an even better offer. Presumably the listener is supposed to sympathize with the predicament of these senior journalists or the HR executives in the face of such practices.
Such complaints were heard when Divya Bhaskar was launched in Gujarat, when DNA was launched in Mumbai, and whenever there is talk of hiring good journalists. Presumably that is what the cricket coach did when he went back with the BCCI offer and negotiated his terms with Kent. Or at least that is what one newspaper reported.
But this is not about cricket and coaches. It is about the seeming horror of journalists at such a practice by their colleagues. Let us start with what is now the acknowledged position of most newspapers in their editorial pages and also in the way they run stories on the news pages: the belief and commitment to the idea that free markets are efficient in addressing economic problems and needs. One of things that those who write on the efficiency of markets talk about is the manner in which free markets, unfettered by government regulations and other coercive mechanisms, allow for the price discovery to take place. It is only in conditions of free market that the seller of a good or service is able to get the highest price that the buyer is able to afford. Since there will be numerous buyers and numerous sellers, so we are informed, the proper price will be found and given to the seller of the service. It is for this reason that reducing the number of buyers, or sellers, or collusion among buyers or among sellers is seen as being an impediment to the free market process. Such a primer would not be necessary were it not for the fact that journalists are apparently horrified at the prospect of journalists who have nothing better than their skills moving from buyer to buyer trying to command the right price. They are just trying to discover the price of their skills.
But what about ethics or double-crossing, or the like? It is certainly less unethical than companies who decide, for example, not to poach from each other. That to me is collusion. When companies, necessarily fewer in number and hence with the ability to both agree and enforce such agreements, decide that they agree not to hire from their competitors, whether it be in the news business or in any other business, it is clear that they are forming a cartel designed to suppress wages. It is analogous to the mandi where middlemen often keep the procurement price of a perishable commodity low by refusing to buy above a certain price.
One can understand the anxiety of those charged with profit and loss responsibility in news organizations or the human resource executives charged with getting competent candidates at racked down wages in moaning about the uppity journalist who is merely following the logic espoused in their newspapers and magazines. It is the journalist that one is surprised about and concerned.
Do these journalists not get it? If today they are bothered about junior journalists trying to find out what is the cost of their wares, it may well be that these senior journalists’ price is also likely to be depressed. After all, it does not take a lot of imagination to realize that if there is a problem with those lower down the rung finding their right price, so there would be with those higher in the hierarchy seeking a reasonably right recompense for their services.
But then again it may be not be a question of imagination. It may be simply a case of false consciousness. Marx has his uses. While the logic of free market is fine for the company, for the economy, for the country, it does not seem to be that there should be a free market for labour, which allows someone to get the highest price for her skills and services. If at all there should be any sympathy, it should be for those who cannot poach and get the right candidate and for those journalists stuck in such no-poaching markets, and any lack of formal recorded knowledge prohibits one from naming them, which do not allow them to command the wages they deserve.
Contact: hammerntongs@fastmail.com
ALOKE THAKORE
When companies decide that they agree not to hire from their competitors, it is clear that they are forming a cartel designed to suppress wages
A complaint often heard about journalists and how greedy they have become, especially the younger lot, comes in the form of: He took the offer letter from us and then showed it to his present employers and then took double the hike. How unethical. And then there is the other one who took our offer letter, showed it to her bosses, got a hike, came back to us and then asked for an even better offer. Presumably the listener is supposed to sympathize with the predicament of these senior journalists or the HR executives in the face of such practices.
Such complaints were heard when Divya Bhaskar was launched in Gujarat, when DNA was launched in Mumbai, and whenever there is talk of hiring good journalists. Presumably that is what the cricket coach did when he went back with the BCCI offer and negotiated his terms with Kent. Or at least that is what one newspaper reported.
But this is not about cricket and coaches. It is about the seeming horror of journalists at such a practice by their colleagues. Let us start with what is now the acknowledged position of most newspapers in their editorial pages and also in the way they run stories on the news pages: the belief and commitment to the idea that free markets are efficient in addressing economic problems and needs. One of things that those who write on the efficiency of markets talk about is the manner in which free markets, unfettered by government regulations and other coercive mechanisms, allow for the price discovery to take place. It is only in conditions of free market that the seller of a good or service is able to get the highest price that the buyer is able to afford. Since there will be numerous buyers and numerous sellers, so we are informed, the proper price will be found and given to the seller of the service. It is for this reason that reducing the number of buyers, or sellers, or collusion among buyers or among sellers is seen as being an impediment to the free market process. Such a primer would not be necessary were it not for the fact that journalists are apparently horrified at the prospect of journalists who have nothing better than their skills moving from buyer to buyer trying to command the right price. They are just trying to discover the price of their skills.
But what about ethics or double-crossing, or the like? It is certainly less unethical than companies who decide, for example, not to poach from each other. That to me is collusion. When companies, necessarily fewer in number and hence with the ability to both agree and enforce such agreements, decide that they agree not to hire from their competitors, whether it be in the news business or in any other business, it is clear that they are forming a cartel designed to suppress wages. It is analogous to the mandi where middlemen often keep the procurement price of a perishable commodity low by refusing to buy above a certain price.
One can understand the anxiety of those charged with profit and loss responsibility in news organizations or the human resource executives charged with getting competent candidates at racked down wages in moaning about the uppity journalist who is merely following the logic espoused in their newspapers and magazines. It is the journalist that one is surprised about and concerned.
Do these journalists not get it? If today they are bothered about junior journalists trying to find out what is the cost of their wares, it may well be that these senior journalists’ price is also likely to be depressed. After all, it does not take a lot of imagination to realize that if there is a problem with those lower down the rung finding their right price, so there would be with those higher in the hierarchy seeking a reasonably right recompense for their services.
But then again it may be not be a question of imagination. It may be simply a case of false consciousness. Marx has his uses. While the logic of free market is fine for the company, for the economy, for the country, it does not seem to be that there should be a free market for labour, which allows someone to get the highest price for her skills and services. If at all there should be any sympathy, it should be for those who cannot poach and get the right candidate and for those journalists stuck in such no-poaching markets, and any lack of formal recorded knowledge prohibits one from naming them, which do not allow them to command the wages they deserve.
Contact: hammerntongs@fastmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment