Org Mobile Site
http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article1404
Horrible and despicable.
Horrible and despicable.
Originally Posted by Article:
An appalling total of 144 trade unionists were murdered for defending workers’ rights in 2006, while more than 800 suffered beatings or torture, according to the Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights Violations, published by the 168-million member International Trade Union Confederation. The 379-page report details nearly 5,000 arrests and more than 8,000 dismissals of workers due to their trade union activities. 484 new cases of trade unionists held in detention by governments are also documented in the report.
An appalling total of 144 trade unionists were murdered for defending workers’ rights in 2006, while more than 800 suffered beatings or torture, according to the Annual Survey of Trade Union Rights Violations, published by the 168-million member International Trade Union Confederation. The 379-page report details nearly 5,000 arrests and more than 8,000 dismissals of workers due to their trade union activities. 484 new cases of trade unionists held in detention by governments are also documented in the report.
America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud! 
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
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.
Originally Posted by :
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Bellum:
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.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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Do Discrimation laws cover this in your country (UK if I remember correctly...)? They do here.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.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Do Discrimation laws cover this in your country (UK if I remember correctly...)? They do here.
What was I discriminating about? All the staff were subject to it.Do Discrimation laws cover this in your country (UK if I remember correctly...)? They do here.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
What was I discriminating about? All the staff were subject to it.
Discriminating on the basis of Union Membership. Down here it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of belonging to a union.What was I discriminating about? All the staff were subject to it.
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.
"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...Discriminating on the basis of Union Membership. Down here it is illegal to fire someone on the basis of belonging to a union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Eh, I don't think socialism is the answer to the problems in those countries.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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud!
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
I agree, let's remove the unions, and use these instead:America, especially, needs more unionists. $100,000 plus benifits a year for screwing on the armrest of an Escalade is corporate fraud!
Unions had a place, but are now damaging industry in the West.
Originally Posted by Ice:
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
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.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
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
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...
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...
Originally Posted by Ice:
Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?
Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?
Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?Why exactly do we still need, or did we ever need socialism?
Why not just basic protection for the basic rights of workers?
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
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...
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...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...
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...
Originally Posted by Soulforged:
Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?
Where do you think those "basic rights of workers" come from?
Unions and the government?
Originally Posted by :
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".
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.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".
Originally Posted by :
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.
Not really true. Maybe 50-100 a hundred years ago, but I'd have to disagree now.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
This isn't the 18th century. Your argument can't really be directly applied to many situations today.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
While surveillance technology exists, you seem to be exagerating a bit.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Again, I disagree. Communists? Guiliotinne users? Anti-democratic measures? 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.
Originally Posted by Ice:
Unions and the government?
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 .Unions and the government?
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.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
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?
I always thought they were crap myself. All they say is "Bush is evil. Bush is evil. Bush is evil." Boring.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?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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...
Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.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...
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.
Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.Precisely. In countries where whether there is socialism is the least of the people's worries.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.
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.
Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
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 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...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.
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 ?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.
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?Socialism is the oppression of the working classes.
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
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.
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.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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO