http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article1404
Horrible and despicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Printable View
http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article1404
Horrible and despicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud! :laugh4:
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
Don't confuse the corrupt version of the union system in America with the real and important unions.
This makes me want to throw-up.
There we go... someone has played the predictable card. Stop de-humanising the economy. It is supposed to be run for the people, so let the people run it.Quote:
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
I'm not against unions. People have a right to organise for whatever reason they want. Companies shouldn't allow them to dictate their policy, however.
So you believe that a Company has the right to ignore Unions? If so, I fail to see what a Union would achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellum
I was a union man for many, many years. What I didn't like about the set up was the top down action. By that I mean orders from the hierarchy instructing us on industrial action. Woe betide anyone who disagreed.
Why we still need socialism in 2008.
What's with the 'we' business? I don't feel the need for a self-serving bunch of onanists telling me what to do.
Anyway, when I started my own business I banned unions. It was my business after all. If any of the staff didn't like that, they could sling their hook.
:sweatdrop:
Do Discrimation laws cover this in your country (UK if I remember correctly...)? They do here.Quote:
Anyway, when I started my own business I banned unions. It was my business after all. If any of the staff didn't like that, they could sling their hook.
What was I discriminating about? All the staff were subject to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Discriminating on the basis of Union Membership. Down here it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of belonging to a union.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
"Up here" it's illegal to even touch unions with a negative attitude. In fact, the employer has to teach the would-be employee about the benefits of being a union member...Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Wait! You mean that the business I set up with my money, mortgaging my home and me working for no pay for the first year, should then be told that I have to employ only unionistas?
Thank god not in the UK anymore.
Jeez some people.
I can see where the jokes concerning the eroding Dover cliffs come from.
As I recall from when I ran a business in the UK, one cannot bar an employee from belonging to a union and obtaining advice and guidance from that source.
However, as the employer you do not have to recognise the union as having any official capacity (ie for wage bargaining) - one deals entirely with the individual employee regardless of their memberships. If the employer decides to recognise a union, then the representatives from that union may speak on behalf of a group of employees.
For example, in a business that does not recognise a union, a disciplinary procedure would involve the employee. Because employment law states that an employee subject to a formal disciplinary is entitled to a witness/advisor, the employee who is a union member may bring a union representative to the meeting - whether the union is formally recognised or not. But equally they might bring their lawyer - or their mum, all of whom would have the same status in the disciplinary.
Clear as mud, I expect. :embarassed:
Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?
Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?
Unions should be allowed, TO AN EXTENT
They always should be willing to meet the company halfway. Likewise for their employers.
Eh, I don't think socialism is the answer to the problems in those countries.Quote:
Dictatorships and authoritarian governments in Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, North Korea and several Gulf countries maintained their suppression of independent trade unions, with more than 100 Chinese workers detained in prisons and forced labour camps in appalling conditions. The Zimbabwean government continued its violent repression of the country’s trade union movement. Of 265 participants in a trade union protest who were arrested by the authorities, 15 including the top leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions were severely beaten whilst in detention.
I agree, let's remove the unions, and use these instead:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
http://educaterra.terra.com.br/volta...guilhotina.gif
:dizzy2:
When there are corporate-funded organizations cooperating to screw workers as much as possible and drive down their salaries, there won't be any "basic protection for the basic rights of workers". Governments too tend to be really bad at protecting the rights of the workers, especially with the way western "the-mock-crazy" works: vote for a package of opinions, instead of separately for each issue. Usually in package-voting, the entire choice of who rules the country is based on a single or a few questions, and worker rights are often forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Pre-18th century the workers got screwed because the rich had good administration cooperating to further their own goals, while poor had no organization at all. Post 18th century, this form of organization between poor, turned tables and made the poor even more influential than the rich due to their numbers. Now, unions and socialist parties are getting undermined in power, and cooperation and socialistic ideology are dissolving, while globalization also strengthens the companies (modern counterpart to nobility) again. Unions and moderate socialism are good peaceful ways of defending against oppression from the stronger, the guilliotinne becomes the only alternative if political measures prevent the poor from being able to influence the decisions of the rich in time by peaceful measures, before the misery grows too strong. The surveillance technology is another such threat towards the poor, that is growing these days. It causes silence and fear of protesting the society developments, and may also strive to take us back to alternating between oppression and guilliotinne.
That's why I think socialism is needed again, to fight both communists, guilliotinne users, and oppressors and anti-democratic measures. Nobody will really benefit more than a few years from the breakdown of moderate socialism.
At the painting business I worked at recently, one of the older hands told me they used to be a unionized group, but they weren't anymore. He also said that being in a union shop will get you a certain wage depending on experience, but that not being union will get you paid what your worth.
Now, I don't think people (aside from public employees) should be barred from unionizing, but companies should be free to ignore any unions, fire employees trying to turn their business into a unionized one, and not have closed shops.
CR
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:
Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
When it comes to american unions, I have no problem believing a WSJ article declaring them idiots, as, well, they do seem to behave like idiots...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
However, this article wasn't about them, it was about union workers in china getting hunted down and killed for trying to demand a break every 6 hours and things like that...
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Unions and the government?
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.Quote:
When there are corporate-funded organizations cooperating to screw workers as much as possible and drive down their salaries, there won't be any "basic protection for the basic rights of workers".
Not really true. Maybe 50-100 a hundred years ago, but I'd have to disagree now.Quote:
Governments too tend to be really bad at protecting the rights of the workers, especially with the way western "the-mock-crazy" works: vote for a package of opinions, instead of separately for each issue. Usually in package-voting, the entire choice of who rules the country is based on a single or a few questions, and worker rights are often forgotten.
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.Quote:
Now, unions and socialist parties are getting undermined in power, and cooperation and socialistic ideology are dissolving, while globalization also strengthens the companies (modern counterpart to nobility) again.
This isn't the 18th century. Your argument can't really be directly applied to many situations today.Quote:
Unions and moderate socialism are good peaceful ways of defending against oppression from the stronger, the guilliotinne becomes the only alternative if political measures prevent the poor from being able to influence the decisions of the rich in time by peaceful measures, before the misery grows too strong.
While surveillance technology exists, you seem to be exagerating a bit.Quote:
The surveillance technology is another such threat towards the poor, that is growing these days. It causes silence and fear of protesting the society developments, and may also strive to take us back to alternating between oppression and guilliotinne.
Again, I disagree. Communists? Guiliotinne users? Anti-democratic measures?Quote:
That's why I think socialism is needed again, to fight both communists, guilliotinne users, and oppressors and anti-democratic measures. Nobody will really benefit more than a few years from the breakdown of moderate socialism.
Examples of how this applies to modern society would be nice.
Oh, come on. It's pretty obvious. Socialism. The whole bloody ideology bases itself on protecting the people's rights against the Robber Barons tm .Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Nobody in their right mind (I don't count extreme capitalists, fascists, and other assorted nuttorios as particularly sensible) would deny socialism's place in history for forcing the powers-that-be to take action to improve the lot of Joe Commoner. Though this thread is about whether the concrete ideology of socialism is still needed or not.
Without...whatwasit, Knights of Labor?...protesting and rioting back in the day we probably wouldn't see workers being treated as decent human beings for quite a while in the History of Man.
Though I agree that you can't necessarily compare the AFL-CIO's activities to the few brave Chinese people who dared stand against the scums in Beijing with only torture rooms and firing squads waiting for them at the end of the road.
I always thought they were crap myself. All they say is "Bush is evil. Bush is evil. Bush is evil." Boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Marx held the idea that workers should own the factory where they work themselves. Lenin decided that the state should own the factory, and the unions and workers should be happy about it.
You get the same in a leninist state that you have in a brutal capitalist state. I'm not promoting marxist-leninism, I'm promoting socialism. Reformist socialism, if you will. And that's not present in either China, Burma or Thailand.
How does that relate to my post?
What can socialism offer those people more than any other (not dicatatorship or whatever) form of political ideology could offer? The problems in the countries mentioned in the articles aren't caused by a lack of socialism, but by the presence of dictatorships, military regimes, etc. Any change would be preferable, and I really don't see the link to a necessity of socialism in general based on the presented article.
Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, "really existing socialism" has indeed turned out to be that way - but then again, it's not like China for example was paying even lip service to Marxist economic theory anymore (it is actually debatable if any of the Communist states ever did to begin with, given that Marxist theory cannot actually be employed to understand their crackpot systems). It's free-for-all capitalism of the jolly bad old mid-1800s fashion there now.
That's the endgame of revolutionary Communism for you.
Reformatory Socialism, or "Social Democracy" as it's also known, has - besides been earnestly hated by both revolutionary Communists and all brands of Fascists - however proven to work right fine, as us folks up here in Scandinavia can attest to. And much of the rest of the part of Europe that wasn't dragooned into sharing the "really existing socialism" experience, for that matter.
And since when did things remain static ? New grievances pop up readily enough (although often they're just aspects of the old ones thathaven't yet been addressed) and more importantly the second they get the opportunity the Management will start trying to cut costs in all the merry old ugly ways - when the cat is away the mice...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Since they these days have a hard time doing it to the workers in the First World, they've moved it to the Third since logistics and communications and suchlike now make it feasible. Somewhat curiously, they also seem to employ rank thuggery to brutalize and terrorize their workforce there to bend knee as needed, and merrily engage in straight corruption with whatever authorities now exist to try and keep the peons in line and unorganized.
Which is pretty much exactly what they were doing here in the "West" not even a hundred years back.
Plus, there's the fact that the workers are basically making a living selling their work capacity to the employers. What's wrong with them banding together so they can negotiate as good "returns of investement" out of it as possible ?
Considering that Socialism arose from a very obvious oppression of the working classes, I'm taking it that you argue that it's outlived it's purpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I would make a claim with that:
In a not that far future Socialism will be a neccessity for a stable society.
You cannot aviod it. ~;)
That is unless we came up with something completely new system. Or accept some very nasty human treatment.
Why you may ask? Well, if you promise to atleast try to make a decent attemt to counter it, I'll tell you (I don't really expect you to succeed, it's a natural consequence). Mentioned it before but then none responded at all :no:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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
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.
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 Ice
Uhm, you are thinking short term and simply.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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 InsaneApache
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
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
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
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
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, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?
A worthy point of criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
Amen brutha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
Not even anywhere near an absolute truth. And in most cases, is completely untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
For the short term this holds usually holds true.Quote:
Lower salaries = more profit
Indeed, that's why some government restriction is needed. I'm not laissez faire.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.
What point are you arguing with me here?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.
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.Quote:
You forgot that the "advantage" of increased factor of competition also causes lower price of workers, i.e. shitty salaries.
Besides, jobs are created for those in many poor countries that didn't have them before.
I never said they should be legally restrict, so I'm not sure why you are quoting me saying that.Quote:
That is why we need a legal right to have unions, and not forbid or "legally restrict" it, as you put it.
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.
Yeah, my apologies for not wanting to bind corporations to unions.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.
No. You are thinking to polar, debate really is rather useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Somewhat. That's why there are certain laws in place to try to prevent this.Quote:
Uhm, that's exactly the timespan the Market mostly operates in. Shareholder value and quarterly capitalism, remember ?
I'd have to say there are many though that think long term.
I have not, so please explain what you are trying to get at here.Quote:
Plus, have you read up on the history of serfdom and the early Industrial Revolution ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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.
So, how do you forsee human rights, that workers currently enjoy, detereiting so much in the future?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
What do you mean exactly by this?Quote:
...that "socialism" in the broad sense is still required and will be required in the future.
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 ?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
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.
Stages, BKS, stages... We're not talking about revolutionary socialism here ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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 Big King Sanctaphrax
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 CountArach
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiji
Not a good example. How about we take the average coal mine in Poland as an example. Workers are treated as expendable.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
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.
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
Unemployment is hardly the biggest problem for these poor countries, where already the 5 years old children work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
You said they should be limited:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
and they all failed.
and there was much rejoicing
yeah, but which unlucky country has to bear the brunt of socialism for the 'betterment' of the rest of us?
and there was much rejoicing
"Socialism" as in reformatory Socialism as in Social Democracy as in the form that the revolutionary types accused - justifiably - of trying to correct the faults of the capitalist system and therefore preserve it and forestall the Revolution.
Which is also what the right-wingers here normally term "socialism" for short; not my problem if they don't know the difference between the moderate-reformatory and radical-revolutionary strains.
The latter gave the world such pleasantries as the USSR and PRC; the former, the Scandinavian welfare states and workers' rights in general.
A reformist socialist isn't a social democrat. Now you almost made me cry.
Around the same thing as far as practical policies go insofar as I am aware of. Differences in political liturgy don't particularly interest me.
Pfft, it's in the practical area where the labour/social democratic parties and the more generic socialist parties differ, as the social democrats steer more towards privatization(especially after Blair), while the socialists use(or wish to use, they're generally a lot smaller than labour) the state.
Ah, you were talking about parties. That's different of course; usually the SocDems/Labour are the more "centre" of the two, leading to the inevitable drift towards the political "middle ground" in competing for the voters there with their closest peers on the centre-Right whereas the "Socialist" parties tend to be further out in the Left (there sometimes being a Communist fringe beyond them).
Blair, though, was pretty much a turncoat if you ask me.
Um...Bush is going to be removed no matter what. The rest of the issues you listed are not issues of great importance this election cycle.Quote:
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.
You what I find funny about the contention that employers will also try to get the cheapest employees? The idea that somehow management does not understand 'you get what you pay for'. Do any of you buy the cheapest car you find? Why would management always drive for the cheapest employees like you claim? Getting the best value for employees is very different from just getting the cheapest. Really, economics 101 people.
CR
Psst... "Marxism-Leninism" is good ol' Joe Dzugashvili's euphemism for "Stalinism" ~;)Quote:
Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.
As for these killings and beatings, it's appaling and wrong. People should be allowed to state and defend what they think is right, regardless of the fact if it's moronic (or not). However, a little over a hundred dead unionists, eight hundred beatings, eight thousand people getting fired (allegedly) for being part of a trade union -- on a world population of six billion and a working world population of what, three, four billion? Terrible, yes, but don't you think this is a little bit too large of a fuss?
EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".
Then I guess outsourcing is just a collective fantasy we're all having around here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".
Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.
I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.
Like the recent thing with the toys Made In China, where the problem turned out to have been at the initial planning stage rather than actual execution.
People can actually be amazingly stubborn about failing to recognize the coefficent between price and quality. All the more so if all they deal with is stock values and never a whiff of what those correlate to in reality.
Outsourcing, at least in regards to the computer industry, happens because the Indian engineers are just as talented as American ones, but much cheaper to hire. The Indian workers are a better value, not just cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Ya, that's capitalism. Those people who make stupid decisions either start making better decisions or go out of business.Quote:
As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".
Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.
I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.
Do you have a beef with outsourcing? If you do, does that extend to the whole idea of international trade; namely buying things from other countries cheaper instead of making them yourself?
CR
You reminded me of a thought I once had, Rabbitt. Namely, that all of the "we need to be one world" crowd was going about it the wrong way. International trade will, via the exchange of value, slowly level the entire playing field and bring the world together more naturally than will any attempt to do so by fiat. A long slow process though....Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Reformist socialist, as in, changing socialism so much that it basically isn't socialism any more but yet another possible direction in the political spectrum of a liberal democracy? As in, social democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'd say the diffence between social democrats and socialists/communists is that social democrats wish to bring about the dreamed communism of Karl Marx from the inside of the capitalist society he saw, while Marxists et al wish to do so from the outside.
The main practical difference I know of is that one bunch wants to overthrow the whole Capitalist structure and build something better in its place, while the other wants to fix it where needed and as such actually keep the whole Revolution from happening on account of No Reason To.
Which is, obviously, why back in the day the Revolutionaries loathed the Reformists with the passion typically encountered in regards to heretics and reprobates.
Given which party for a while was actually all for Fascist takeover (on the account that they were the ultimate expression of everything wrong with the Capitalist sytem, and would hence only bring about the Revolution that much faster) and quite manifestly failed to factually deliver what it should, I figure it's pretty clear which camp I prefer.
No... Reformist socialist as in wanting to create the socialist state(and utopia) through stages of reform, not through a(or stages of) revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
In the easy version, the revolutionaries believe that there's no reason to wait, we can make it quickly. The reformists believe that the change will take a long time, and you go about it one piece at a time.
The social democrats seem to have found their place already, between a planned and market economy.
Revolutionaries call themselves revolutionaries. It's a damn good name, why would they want to call themselves something else?Quote:
EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".
That's the thing. Through various stages of reform implies working through the current system, and ultimately that entails making compromises either way; at some point either a revolution is required, or they remain nothing more than social democrats who still claim to have utopia in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore