Why we still need socialism in 2008.

That "not screwing your workers" is a selling point to begin with - and the matter appears to be changing these days - is pretty much solely due to the fact organized labour and the authorities force-fed the idea to the employers. The powers-that-be had no interest in seeing an impoverished proletariat radicalizing and going revolutionary en masse, y'see.

The fundamental problem lies in the basic paradigm of making a profit - namely, earning as much as possible as cheaply as possible. Buy cheap, sell dear. The issue is that the backbone of the system is that the employers are buying the work capacity of the employees, and selling the products; obviously it is only logial they'll try to buy as cheaply as possible.

Which is why things like minimum wage legislations, maximum work hours etc. had to be devised to keep the Management from treating the Labour like so many serfs, as they still do in parts of the world where protective legislation is not enforced or didn't exist in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The problem is that some will "screw the workers" if they get the chance. And something isn't really working well if it "only" screws half the work-force.

---

Many companies have proven tract records about how they treated who they employee. When applying for a position, it should be the future employee's job to do some research and find out who they are going to be working for.

Believe it or not, they do teach ethics to business majors in university. Don't confuse ethics with law. Those are two separated things, and two separate classes. Something can be legal, but not ethical.

People in MOST corporations, atleast lately, are expected to act ethically in the sense for respect for the environment and workers benefits/rights for example. Many corporations won't hire you, and will dismiss you if they are find you are acting unethically to the companies values.

Like i said before, it is in the corporations best interests these days to act ethically and treat their workers correctly. People feel more comfortable and moral investing money in them.

Swell, but why is it the workers still get squeezed all the harder these days ?

Because for the larger part, they themselves are disinterested in and uninformed about what their rights actually are. Makes for easy targets for unions in a number of cases.

Socialism has a vested interest in holding back the working classes. Think about it.

"Socialism" as in the USSR form or as in the Social Democratic form ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

...Stop de-humanising the economy. It is supposed to be run for the people, so let the people run it.

---

Basic disconnect. I do not believe that an economy is "run" despite the claims of various politicians that they're doing so. Economies happen as a result of the interplay of various market forces. Government, environment, people, etc. are all influences.

If "workers" wish to band together to perform some service or make some product, more power to them. Partnerships are a good thing. In this way, they own the means of production and can reap the rewards of their efforts directly.

If I use my resources to fund an organization and become an owner of that organization by so investing, I am seeking a return on investment. From that rubric, "workers" are a cost that must be borne. This does not mean that an absolute minimum wage is the goal, however, since this means a loss of quality applicants and a host of turnover problems etc. Compensation must be reasonable. Just as some of the capital has to be plowed back into the business for proper growth, some of it has to be plowed into the workstaff to minimize turnover and protect vital skills and knowledge -- that's just good long term thinking.

Nothing wrong with workers voluntarily banding together to encourage equitable treatment, nor with collective bargaining.

The assumption that the purpose of a workplace is to provide a livelihood for its workers is fatuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Many companies have proven tract records about how they treated who they employee. When applying for a position, it should be the future employee's job to do some research and find out who they are going to be working for.

Believe it or not, they do teach ethics to business majors in university. Don't confuse ethics with law. Those are two separated things, and two separate classes. Something can be legal, but not ethical.

People in MOST corporations, atleast lately, are expected to act ethically in the sense for respect for the environment and workers benefits/rights for example. Many corporations won't hire you, and will dismiss you if they are find you are acting unethically to the companies values.

Like i said before, it is in the corporations best interests these days to act ethically and treat their workers correctly. People feel more comfortable and moral investing money in them.

---

Uhm, no it's not. A slave will earn you more money than a regular employee. And do we really care about how our clothes were sewn together? Do we really care if it was done by slaves? The market tells us, sadly, that we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, no it's not. A slave will earn you more money than a regular employee. And do we really care about how our clothes were sewn together? Do we really care if it was done by slaves? The market tells us, sadly, that we don't.

---

Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.

---

Nope, take as long a term as you like. The slave will still be the best option for easy production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Socialism has a vested interest in holding back the working classes. Think about it.

---

Not true. Social Democracy, once successfully implemented will continue to win votes from those it has helped - i.e. the lower classes. If they have not done anything to help those who need it, then they won't win the votes. Democracy is great as a safety net in that way. However, if by Socialism you mean the USSR sense of the word (Ie, Not Socialism), then I absolutely agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I'm pretty sure most corporations try to make a profit, and their primary goal is not to "screw workers". Many treat their workers well to attract investors who actually care about who they are investing in.

---

Lower salaries = more profit. Plus, given that most investors these days invest in oil blood money, porn and weapons industry, I'd think twice about trusting the investors to be an important factor in making sure workers are treated well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Not really true. Maybe 50-100 a hundred years ago, but I'd have to disagree now.

---

It was actually shown in a study that Norway and Sweden, who had union-based salary deals instead of government-based minimum salary deals on average led to much better protection of the workers than in other European countries. Among other things for the reason I mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

There are many advantages/disadvantages to globalization , one advantage being the increased factor of competition and the lower price of goods to the consumer. One disadvantage being workers losing jobs to other places. That is another topic though.

---

You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

This isn't the 18th century. Your argument can't really be directly applied to many situations today.

---

Why not? If social justice through legal measures is eliminated, then only violence remains. Social justice is something so central to most human beings that they are - as we've seen in 1789 in France and 1917 in Russia, prepared to kill for it. And why shouldn't they, considering that the regimes in 1789 France and 1917 Russia didn't care about their population dying like flies while the leaders and nobility became rich, it's pure self defense? If things decline to the levels of 1789 or 1917, I'm quite sure a guilliotinne or similar method will be used, and violent massed revolts will become a reality again. This serves as a good reminder to those who wish to abolish unions and basic rights of the workers, because their abolishment will cause this form of decline, and when it reaches a bad enough state, violence will be the result. That is why we need a legal right to have unions, and not forbid or "legally restrict" it, as you put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Examples of how this applies to modern society would be nice.

---

This applies to the future that would be created by following your suggestion to "limit" or "forbid" unions, thus removing all legal methods to prevent total oppression of the workers, leaving violence as their only alternative to communicate and protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.

---

Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?

Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember?

---

A worthy point of criticism.

Organizational leaders may well be inclined to think long term -- working for market share as opposed to immediate profits, investing in work force development etc. -- but that doesn't mean they have the freedom to enact such efforts.

I do admit it annoys me that a stock futures broker sometimes has such influence over organizational decisions. Their vested interest is ONLY centered in making bets on the relative price of stock, and they have zero incentive to think more than 90 days into the future. Yet all too often their opinions -- and the impact on stock prices -- influence decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There's no such thing as an industry that has an organized workforce that didn't do something to deserve them in the first place. But labor unions are a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Once the original grievance is resolved, they don't disband, they invent new 'issues' to try to justify their existence.

And besides, don't think you the Union's own propaganda about its activities to be just a little slanted guys? You won't believe a story in the Wall Street Journal, but you'll take as gospel the union's own newsletter? There's some objective thinking for you... :juggle2:

---

Amen brutha.

A few truths:

1) If a business's employees decide to unionize, this represents a failure of management.

2) Management gets the union it deserves.

In a nutshell, if you have treated your employees so badly that they feel they need to unionize, then you have failed.

Having said that, I have had union experience as follows:

1) Worked in a factory for the summer when I was sixteen. The company hired me because they were given a grant by the Canadian government to hire a student for the summer. On my first day the shop steward came over and gave me a hard time for taking a job away from "somebody who really might have needed it." For the remainder of that job, none of the staff would talk to me, sit near me at lunch, or have anything to do with me.

2) Worked in a bar that went union while I was working there when I was 19 because one of the waitresses was an activist of sorts and convinced the rest of us that we weren't being fairly compensated. Within three months, the cooks were bitching because the servers weren't giving them a big enough cut of their tips, the servers were bitching because they were forced to give too much of a cut to the cooks, nobody had gotten a pay increase, and the woman who had instigated union certification had quit because everybody hated her.

3) One of my restaurant clients (I am a commercial banker) had a student working there for the summer who was in the process of working on his PHD at uni, something to do with labor relations and commerce. This kid, as part of his research, made it his mission/project to unionize the restaurant through lies, manipulation, and deceit. Wtihin 90 days of certification, a restaurant that had been successful for over 15 years and whose staff had been making good money had to close its doors forever.

The Don summed it up nicely: unions are a permanent solution to a short-term problem. For staff, it is usually akin to signing a deal with the devil. There might be some short-term benefit, but then you suffer for an eternity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Lower salaries = more profit.

---

Not even anywhere near an absolute truth. And in most cases, is completely untrue.

Quote:

---

Lower salaries = more profit

---

For the short term this holds usually holds true.

Quote:

---

Plus, given that most investors these days invest in oil blood money, porn and weapons industry, I'd think twice about trusting the investors to be an important factor in making sure workers are treated well.

---

Indeed, that's why some government restriction is needed. I'm not laissez faire.

Quote:

---

It was actually shown in a study that Norway and Sweden, who had union-based salary deals instead of government-based minimum salary deals on average led to much better protection of the workers than in other European countries. Among other things for the reason I mentioned.

---

What point are you arguing with me here?

Quote:

---

You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

---

For the most part, this forces people to reeducate in order to get to the salary they were making. I can't speak for other countries, but here the government will help pay for an additional two year degree if your job gets outsourced.

Besides, jobs are created for those in many poor countries that didn't have them before.

Quote:

---

That is why we need a legal right to have unions, and not forbid or "legally restrict" it, as you put it.

---

I never said they should be legally restrict, so I'm not sure why you are quoting me saying that.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was trying to make is that companies should not be bound to unions. I never said anything about forbidding union organization or participation.

Quote:

---

This applies to the future that would be created by following your suggestion to "limit" or "forbid" unions, thus removing all legal methods to prevent total oppression of the workers, leaving violence as their only alternative to communicate and protest.

---

Yeah, my apologies for not wanting to bind corporations to unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nope, take as long a term as you like. The slave will still be the best option for easy production.

---

No. You are thinking to polar, debate really is rather useless.

Quote:

---

Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?

---

Somewhat. That's why there are certain laws in place to try to prevent this.

I'd have to say there are many though that think long term.

Quote:

---

Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?

---

I have not, so please explain what you are trying to get at here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Lower salaries = more profit.
You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.

---

Not so much. Ford was famous for paying workers well above the average pay at the time to boost production. I'd say he was pretty successful.

Corporations are not stupid, they understand the best average to satisfy employees while beating competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I have not, so please explain what you are trying to get at here.

---

Can be summed up roughly as "so long as the workers don't have alternatives, I can always squeeze them a bit harder to maintain the profit margin". Did wonders to retard both technological and social developement back in the day - the estate owners kept getting filthy rich mind you, but the society went to Hell and more often than not a neighbour who wasn't running as crappy a system came and took over.

Or the peons rose up in a bloody rebellion.

That's roughly the history of serfdom in a nutshell. Industrialization worked slightly differently - obviously - but an unifying feature was that the owners for the most part had a bad habit of treating their workforce like so much disposable dirt unless they had pressing reasons not to; this usually equaled intervention from the authorities or other such trouble.

And where things for one reason or another didn't improve (usually because the authorities sided with the owners), well, Russian Revolution is one example of what lay at the end of that path.

The owners only play nice these day for around two reasons. One, some of them actually have internalized the value-sets of enlightened treatment of the Labour, fair business ethics etc. Alas these qualities aren't exactly the ones the private sector generally encourages, as they have a bad tendency to get in the way of making (short-term) profit.
Two, and easily the most important one, is that if they don't the auhtorities tend to read them the riot act. Where the authorities fail to provide this function they have an unpleasant tendency to revert to the exploitative employee-treatment pattern - crappy and dangerous working conditions, child labour, absurd work hours for minimal wages, the works. Violence and similar abuse of the workers is optional.

The inherent operative logic of business is to drive costs down as much as possible while getting as much return-of-investement out of them as possible; the unfortunate result of this built-in tendency, when left to fend for itself, is that the treatment of the workers becomes best characterized with the epithet "slave driving". Even if they're well paid and otherwise enjoy similar fiscal benefits, the devotion and investement of time and energy and general submission of the Self to the Job expected of them tends to be unhealthy at best - nevermind now that one has to wonder what time they are supposed to enjoy their wages in...
And that's the upper end of the spectrum, the personnel who are at least marginally difficult to replace. The disposable lower rungs ? Chewing-gum. Spit out when the taste goes and get a new one.

Now the point of the above is that just because some time back things were worked out to the point where workers actually have de facto human rights doesn't mean the matter will remain so forever on its own; or to misquote one chestnut, "every new generation has to be won back from barbarism".

It's not like "the Management" were inherently bad people wanting to reduce "the Labour" to virtual slavery or anything; it's just that the inherent logic of cost-efficiency considerations (especially in the context of an economy obsessed with short-term profit) inevitably steers them in that direction sooner or later, and it is just for barring this developement - and generally maintaining the status and factual rights of the workers - that "socialism" in the broad sense is still required and will be required in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Now the point of the above is that just because some time back things were worked out to the point where workers actually have de facto human rights doesn't mean the matter will remain so forever on its own; or to misquote one chestnut, "every new generation has to be won back from barbarism".

---

So, how do you forsee human rights, that workers currently enjoy, detereiting so much in the future?

Quote:

---

...that "socialism" in the broad sense is still required and will be required in the future.

---

What do you mean exactly by this?

Good post by the way. I disagree with a few points, but most of it holds true. Seems we disagree about the future course of business though.

Now things might be different where you live, but I know around here an increase in stress levels, workload, uncertainty of future (eg. if you'll still have this job next year) etc. has been on a pretty sharp upswing for the past, oh, probably actually ten years or so.

All in the name of business efficiency of course. And it's not even restricted to the private sector; public servants are feeling the cost-cutting squeeze too, and expected to meet ever-increasing demands with ever fewer personnel.

New Public Management my arse.

Want the bad end ? Take a look at the conditions of the workers in third-world sweatshops (where most manufacturing is migrating from the Fist World anyway, as a cost-cutting measure - it's simply impossible for First World workers to even consider wages that count as decent there), where protective legislation doesn't even exist or if it does isn't enforced and unionizing tends to be de facto if not also de jure forbidden. Or the short-term employement farm hands (not rarely former smallholder peasants bought out of their lands) cutting crops around the same parts of the world, exposed to pesticides and other pleasantness as a matter of course as if their work alone wasn't grueling enough.
Or the itinerant workers at Chinese construction sites.

Get the picture ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

New Public Management my arse.

Want the bad end ? Take a look at the conditions of the workers in third-world sweatshops (where most manufacturing is migrating from the Fist World anyway, as a cost-cutting measure - it's simply impossible for First World workers to even consider wages that count as decent there), where protective legislation doesn't even exist or if it does isn't enforced and unionizing tends to be de facto if not also de jure forbidden. Or the short-term employement farm hands (not rarely former smallholder peasants bought out of their lands) cutting crops around the same parts of the world, exposed to pesticides and other pleasantness as a matter of course as if their work alone wasn't grueling enough.
Or the itinerant workers at Chinese construction sites.

Get the picture ?

---

Not really. If governments aren't respecting basic human rights and legislation like you claim, why exactly is socialism needed, when much less extreme measures haven't really been tried to their full affect?

I'm a little confused. I've always thought Socialism by definition involved re-distribution of wealth, workers owning the means of production, etc, which don't seem to be relevant here. The thread instead seems to be about why we still need trade unions and workers' rights-things that are perfectly compatible with a laissez-faire capitalist economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So you believe that a Company has the right to ignore Unions? If so, I fail to see what a Union would achieve.

---

None, if the powers that be have any sense. Lets not infringe on the rights of either the employees or the entrepreneurs. There is no reason why a union should be forced to be recognized by the state, but it should be illegal (as it infringes on rights guaranteed by the constitution of the US) to discriminate based on union membership.

Of course, these are the economic values I would choose to live by. What you do in your own country is of very little concern to me.


As far as corporations become militaristic and killing people and stuff...It's happened in America in the past, and it's horrible. That's not the free economy we try to work towards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I'm a little confused. I've always thought Socialism by definition involved re-distribution of wealth, workers owning the means of production, etc, which don't seem to be relevant here. The thread instead seems to be about why we still need trade unions and workers' rights-things that are perfectly compatible with a laissez-faire capitalist economy.

---

Stages, BKS, stages... We're not talking about revolutionary socialism here ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

I'm a little confused. I've always thought Socialism by definition involved re-distribution of wealth, workers owning the means of production, etc, which don't seem to be relevant here. The thread instead seems to be about why we still need trade unions and workers' rights-things that are perfectly compatible with a laissez-faire capitalist economy.

---

Trade Unions have a lot of impact within a Socialist economy, because it is generally believed that they would be a major player in Industrial Relations issues , especially when it comes to ownership of the Means of Production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Trade Unions have a lot of impact within a Socialist economy, because it is generally believed that they would be a major player in Industrial Relations issues , especially when it comes to ownership of the Means of Production.

---

Not to mention that a lot of the models for how to implement workers owning the means of production are quite similar if not identical to the current union structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiji

Not so much. Ford was famous for paying workers well above the average pay at the time to boost production. I'd say he was pretty successful.

Corporations are not stupid, they understand the best average to satisfy employees while beating competition.

---

That depends on how intellectually challenging the work is, and if it's a market where there's an excess of workers compared to jobs, you can only benefit, in the 10 years long term, as a company owner to pay lower salaries. IIRC Ford had the danger of competitors stealing his skilled engineers, and additionally the luck of being one of the first to be able to massproduce cars when the demand exploded, so he could both afford it, and had good reason to.

Not a good example. How about we take the average coal mine in Poland as an example. Workers are treated as expendable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

For the short term this holds usually holds true.

---

See above, and additionally: short term is the key word in modern economies. After you've worked them out for 5-10 years you can just replace them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Indeed, that's why some government restriction is needed. I'm not laissez faire.
[...]
What point are you arguing with me here?

---

The government is not enough to make sure worker's rights are expected. Just look at USA at the moment, there are at least two issues of greater importance in the next election: 1. making sure those who wish to destroy the country (Bush administration and similar-minded) are removed from power before the damage is too big, 2. fight for various human rights issues such as death penalty, abortion, not teaching creationism in biology lessons, abolishing Guantanamo etc.

With so many more important questions, worker's rights are forgotten, because you vote for packages. If you find a package that fulfills your opinions in the above two issues, it may not be a package that cares a rat's *** about worker's rights.

That's why the unions are needed. And you may not be aware, but there exist lobbyist cooperation organizations among employers. If unions did not exist, we would have a one sided situation with employers cooperating, but workers not doing so.

That most US unions are corruption-infested doesn't mean unions are a bad idea - it means the US doesn't have unions, but something else pretending to be unions, and should strive to create unions and remove the current vermin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

For the most part, this forces people to reeducate in order to get to the salary they were making. I can't speak for other countries, but here the government will help pay for an additional two year degree if your job gets outsourced.

---

You lose pension money for 2 years of work even if this works, not to mention that the new branch you go to, will most likely already be full just like all other branches. This means you either become unemployed, or someone else will be fired from his job. Globalization gives no benefit to any except the company owners and employers. Hopefully, their benefit will only be short term, and there will be political movements to halt globalization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Besides, jobs are created for those in many poor countries that didn't have them before.

---

Unemployment is hardly the biggest problem for these poor countries, where already the 5 years old children work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I never said they should be legally restrict, so I'm not sure why you are quoting me saying that.

---

You said they should be limited:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?
[...]
Unions should be allowed, TO AN EXTENT

---