I'm going to go out on a limb and guess there is a labor agreement in place. If that's the case, it may not be stated, but they are assuming that experience = increased production. In addition, labor agreements are designed to benefit the employee.
Well, let me just say that it's pretty clear to management that these people aren't getting any more productive after a certain point (and maybe even getting less productive), yet they continue to get paid more money than the young guns in the same position who are
clearly more productive to management.
I think that in an implicit way, the company is taking care of those who have put many years of loyalty by paying them more money, not because they are assuming that with each year of experience = increased production.
When the company knows that these people are not gaining experience after a certain point, yet is continuing to pay them 35% more than a younger person in the same role, what's the motivation to offer a labor agreement if the assumption that experience = increased production no longer holds true in this case?
Well, the labor market isn't exactly like other commodities in that there are loyalties to individuals. Although, there can be loyalties to products. The best example is the old feud between Ford and Chevy owners. They had brand loyalty that led them to purchase vehicles that may have been over priced or poorly produced.
I don't know KSU. For one thing cars =/= commodities, and for that reason it's easy for me to think of brand loyalty when talking about a product like Lazyboy's vs something like salt which is virtually exactly the same wherever you get it from.
So? How is that important?
Look. I understand that especially in the low skilled world labor is going to be treated 'like' a commodity at times and certainly can see the relation. If 600 people can turn a lever 500x a day for $40, why employ the guy who's demanding you pay him $60. But we're missing a key element of my argument here.
Do we want to perpetuate the idea that labor should be treated like a commodity and wages should be continually worked downwards, or should we consider this idea that perhaps people and the labor they provide are something just a bit different than just sugar or a bottle, ect, and embrace an idea that a company
can be treated a bit more like a 'community' when fiscally possible.
Perhaps if companies take care of people a little better, the gov't might not have to.
Also,
I realize that this is not a fantasy fairy world of glitter and that companies are not in business for the purpose of taking care of their workers, and that it's just not possible to keep paying a premium to people just because they're older and have been with the company a long time - I get that.
However, when it is possible, and perhaps before the CEO decides to give himself a big raise/bonus/whatever, perhaps he/she can pass up on that raise and let a little bit of those profits trickle down to a loyal worker, creating a wage that is slightly more than what the worker is worth on a purely economic standpoint.
Realize I'm ranting vs debating, time for bed!