On Stability, part 2 

By Chris Gulker

Stability... is there such a thing? 

My last effort at this topic revolved around computers and their perceived stability. 

Shakespeare knew that perception, not reality, drives the human situation. People by and large see what
they want to see. 

                       People want stability. Labor unions, for eaxample, have long touted stability as
                       their raison d'etre. The working person doesn't want to have to make decisions
                       or deal with bosses... she just wants a check and benefits and a secure retirement
                       regardless of market conditions, social change or political upheaval. 

                       Sounds good, anyway. But that sort of stability also cuts people off from
                       challenge, change and excitement. It disconnects people from the spirit of
                       invention and adventure. Like a computer crash, human programs can hum right
along into disfunctional states. 

In short, it puts the soul to sleep. The traditional union shop cuts people off from a reason to try - your
check's the same if you show up and barely do the job or if you are a ball of fire. 

In fact, if you work too hard, some of the brothers will come around to advise you against such folly:
don't want to make the rest of us look bad, do you? This is rooted in the union's need to sign on more
members in order to grow its revenue. 

If two hard-working people can replace five casual workers, the union's coffers will suffer even as the
business will grow stronger. Since "stable" businesses have only a fixed amount of work to be done, the
union perception is that the only sure way to grow union membership is by ensuring that no one works
too hard. 

Less productive workers mean that union membership will go up for a given volume of work, hence the
union penchant for work rules. 

Missing from consideration here is the viability of the underlying business. If the Union shop has to pay
5 to do what 2 can do in the non-union shop, then non-union is going to have a pretty clear market
advantage: they can charge lower prices and still make more money than the unionized business. 

One union response to this logic is the belief that this isn't about business: it's about the social order. The
bosses ("them") will do anything to screw the last dime out of workers ("us") the better to buy
champagne for their yacht parties. Business considerations just don't play in this emotional scenario. 

The other response is that unions like it when a company is in a weak position - theory is that it's better
to negotiate from a position of greater strength. 

Like it or not, we are now a part of a global marketplace. A global economy means that businesses have
to compete on price and quality. A strong, stable business will be one that is constantly making its
products better and more efficiently. It will need innovation, invention and committed, empowered
workers to be successful. 

American businesses and workers are already at the disadvantage of a high (and high-cost) standard of
living. Lots of people elsewhere will gladly work hard for a fraction of what Americans will settle for. 

The American standard of living is not a bad thing, though, and the answer is certainly not to reduce it.
The answer is for us to put our world-famous capacity for technical invention into making ourselves
more productive than anyone else in the world. 

We can build stable businesses on robust processes, not on work rules. 

Unions will grow as businesses successfully grow their markets by providing worthy products. Don't
think so? Witness the rise of Sony, Toyota, and Mitsubishi and their work force, which is now among
the highest-paid (and most productive) in the world. 

Business will be able to sustain, indeed, will seek out high-wage workers that are highly productive.
Stable jobs will be jobs in which the worker is not cut off from invention, but is rather the front-line
agent of finding a better way. 

In my opinion, a stable retirement plan will also include a society and standard of living that is worth
retiring to. A nation of workers cut off from the spirit of invention and reduced to competing with the
meanest global standard of living is unlikely to make for a pleasant or "stable" livelihood or retirement. 

But that's just my perception. 

Chris Gulker cg@gulker.com