The hyprocrisy of government employees
There's something common to the striking IIT/IIM professors, Air India pilots and government hospital doctors in Karnataka.
Hypocrisy.
Their striking work is aimed at getting better remuneration for services offered. Sounds reasonable enough. But closer scrutiny reveals something different. Note, every act of commerce has a buyer and a seller. The seller sells in a manner where he receives best returns for whatever he is selling. The buyer buys knowing, that's the best deal he can get. An act of commerce is unfair only if; one, its forced on parties, i.e., parties have no choice, or, two, if either parties have misrepresented their offer so as to get the deal through. What's important to understand is that both parties may believe their respective deals could have been better. I mean, the seller may feel he should have got better returns, the buyer, a better product or service.
In the work contexts that apply to all three striking parties mentioned, the two unfair scenarios don't apply. That is, there's been no misrepresentation by the buying party, the government that buys their services. And neither the professors, nor the pilots, or the doctors have been forced to work for the government. Which means if the aggrieved parties feel that they have not been remunerated well for the services they offer, they are free to take it elsewhere and sell those very services. To a better buyer, who offers better returns. The aggrieved parties haven't done that, which means they believe the returns they currently receive are the best in the marketplace. Don't be fooled by the monetary value that they quote to hold up what they perceive as injustice done to them These parties enjoy non-monetary benefits that their counterparts in the world of private enterprises can't even dream of. For example, take the IIM professors. Their work schedules, the infrastructure within which they live and work, their teaching hours, support for research activities, job security etc., is far far greater than what's enjoyed by their counterparts in the private B Schools. Of course, these professors may say they deserve it because of their competencies. Of course, they do. But why the strike? Doesn't the strike mean they think they are not getting a deal that's commensurate their competencies? If so, why not sell their services elsewhere?
Tell you what, they won't. Its too long they've had their cake without too much of effort. Plus their shrewd calculations show that the world of the private enterprise is cut throat and isn't as conducive as their 'protected' government service. So they stay.
And strike!
Hypocrisy.
Their striking work is aimed at getting better remuneration for services offered. Sounds reasonable enough. But closer scrutiny reveals something different. Note, every act of commerce has a buyer and a seller. The seller sells in a manner where he receives best returns for whatever he is selling. The buyer buys knowing, that's the best deal he can get. An act of commerce is unfair only if; one, its forced on parties, i.e., parties have no choice, or, two, if either parties have misrepresented their offer so as to get the deal through. What's important to understand is that both parties may believe their respective deals could have been better. I mean, the seller may feel he should have got better returns, the buyer, a better product or service.
In the work contexts that apply to all three striking parties mentioned, the two unfair scenarios don't apply. That is, there's been no misrepresentation by the buying party, the government that buys their services. And neither the professors, nor the pilots, or the doctors have been forced to work for the government. Which means if the aggrieved parties feel that they have not been remunerated well for the services they offer, they are free to take it elsewhere and sell those very services. To a better buyer, who offers better returns. The aggrieved parties haven't done that, which means they believe the returns they currently receive are the best in the marketplace. Don't be fooled by the monetary value that they quote to hold up what they perceive as injustice done to them These parties enjoy non-monetary benefits that their counterparts in the world of private enterprises can't even dream of. For example, take the IIM professors. Their work schedules, the infrastructure within which they live and work, their teaching hours, support for research activities, job security etc., is far far greater than what's enjoyed by their counterparts in the private B Schools. Of course, these professors may say they deserve it because of their competencies. Of course, they do. But why the strike? Doesn't the strike mean they think they are not getting a deal that's commensurate their competencies? If so, why not sell their services elsewhere?
Tell you what, they won't. Its too long they've had their cake without too much of effort. Plus their shrewd calculations show that the world of the private enterprise is cut throat and isn't as conducive as their 'protected' government service. So they stay.
And strike!
Comments