The Essence of Trickle Down

[Montmorency]

And both, at their extreme interpretations, are dehumanizing.

No, let me elaborate. Collective bargaining of workers is not just compatible with the "free market, it is a free-market principle; it's just the voluntary association of market agents cooperating to increase the value of a shared asset, I.e their labor. Yet at the same time, without overwhelming resistance the employers and capital owners in the market cannot tolerate labor association as a threat to their own interests. To advocate for the market clout of labor, political unions are called upon to counterbalance the political influence of organized capital. But successful political advocacy seems to require that political unions treat labor as a distinct class rather than a collection of individual workers (otherwise the union looks more like a retail Rewards membership). Treating labor as a distinct class usually, though not by definition, entails a rejection of capitalist class or even property- linked privileges.

In short, old-school anti-capitalist struggle (political labor) relies on the capture of a fundamentally-capitalist structure (economic labor) that is in equilibrium laissez-faire capitalism basically suppressed.

It's like a paradox, see? Maybe you could even call it... dialectical?

Genuine question.

[Montmorency]

West Virginia teachers and school staff wildcat strike ends after over a week on signing of 5% pay increase for ALL state employees; long-term grievances of tax policy, insurance premiums, and general education system troubles deferred

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...306-story.html
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/w...reement-budget

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/w...to-work-unions

[Husar]

Now they're wasting 5% more taxpayer money for feeding their families with products from the private industry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No, let me elaborate. Collective bargaining of workers is not just compatible with the "free market, it is a free-market principle; it's just the voluntary association of market agents cooperating to increase the value of a shared asset, I.e their labor. Yet at the same time, without overwhelming resistance the employers and capital owners in the market cannot tolerate labor association as a threat to their own interests. To advocate for the market clout of labor, political unions are called upon to counterbalance the political influence of organized capital. But successful political advocacy seems to require that political unions treat labor as a distinct class rather than a collection of individual workers (otherwise the union looks more like a retail Rewards membership). Treating labor as a distinct class usually, though not by definition, entails a rejection of capitalist class or even property- linked privileges.

In short, old-school anti-capitalist struggle (political labor) relies on the capture of a fundamentally-capitalist structure (economic labor) that is in equilibrium laissez-faire capitalism basically suppressed.

It's like a paradox, see? Maybe you could even call it... dialectical?

Genuine question.

Dialectics presumes that thesis and antithesis yield to synthesis. What we have is an ongoing seesaw, not an integration.

[Montmorency]

Dialectics presumes that thesis and antithesis yield to synthesis. What we have is an ongoing seesaw, not an integration.

I guess Taft-Hartley* and union shops would be the synthesis of labor unrest being de-radicalized and bureaucratically channeled, higher wages and high-level arbitration for less disruption. The Janus decision could be what breaks the synthesis and gets things swirling again. Certainly noteworthy that West Virginia is one of the more advanced "right-to-work" regimes in the country, with no collective bargaining or right to strike by public workers.