Reaction Paper # 3 is based on the Article, "Labor Economics and Labor Relations", by Loyd Reynolds, Stanley Masters, & Colletta Moser.
This article offers a number of economical viewpoints, which although justifiable and scientifically proven, are still subject to debate. The first disagreeable point made by the author's was their belief that an employee seeks an overall "employment package", apart from wage, in determining their future employer. According to the article, the employee does not seek the highest wage available in their particular market. Instead, they search for the job that will offer the greatest net advantage such as fringe benefits and a pleasant working environment. This is not necessarily true because many potential employees, particularly those in the working class, don't necessarily know the type of working environment in which they will be placed. They may be made aware of the benefits that is granted them but the "overall package" is not necessarily discussed during an interview process. A potential employee doesn't have the feel for the job until he/she is ON the job. This may explain the employee turnover, which is allotted for in the labor market and fuels the competition of a free labor market. For many high-risk jobs, workers must decide for themselves whether or not the compensation is worth the additional risks involved. Government intervention in Safety and Health standards has been establish in an effort to protect the worker. Yet workers are not given the overall spectrum of the risks involved, particularly hazardous chemicals used, until they are employed. It is not until the worker's training period that he/she is handed the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for the potentially hazardous material he/she may be handling. This supports my disagreement with the author's viewpoint that employees look for an "overall package" when considering employment.