nyc transit strike

[matt b]

2. ... I think I should be compensated for the quality of my work and the value of my services (sparing people long jail terms, negotiating contracts favorable, whatever it may be).

3. Comparatively speaking, I'm not sure it takes that much skill..

well my girlfriend is a lawyer (hates it btw), and i don't think that takes much skill- you are not much more than a glorified admin assistant. i asked her (for my work) what skill you most needed to be a lawyer and she replied 'very high boredom threshold'
however solicitors earn quite a lot, but i'd argue that their 'value' is no more than bus drivers

4. Well, the strike doesn't affect me (I don't live in NYC). But I'm not a fan of the labor movement or unions in general. Certainly useful in enacted much-needed reforms in the past (mining and industry, for instance) but not particularly useful where people are making bank and living comfortable, productive lives. At some point, the benefit is limited, but the cost is great. At that point, my begrudging support for unions evaporates, as in the case of NYC transit workers.

yeah mate, wait until you get grief from your boss, harrassed, threatend with the sack, told to work stupid hours. oh look! no organised support and help from anyone- just you against the corporation. you will lose.

as mentioned above, nearly all the rights we take for granted have not been given to us by friendly individuals/corporations, they have been fought for very hard by unions etc- don't take that for granted.

 

[bassnation]

as mentioned above, nearly all the rights we take for granted have not been given to us by friendly individuals/corporations, they have been fought for very hard by unions etc- don't take that for granted.

OTM.

if unions are a relic of the past, why are companies like walmart so keen to crush them? are we supposed to believe that big business is now totally benevolent?

naivety like this is dangerous imo and risks losing what we had to fight for in the first place. nothing was given willingly, just read the history books about the industrial revolution and you'll see what i mean.

 

[martin]

That's what I was saying -- here, it'd be Asian or Hispanic immigrants. I'm one that is thankful we have hard-working immigrants with high aspirations here in the US -- their entrepeneurism and work ethic is the backbone of lower-class labor.

I'm sure their 'high aspirations' extend further than doing jobs for peanuts. Not to mention being on the receiving end of racist propaganda about them coming over here and taking the jobs. No offence, but I find your argument selfish and patronising.

 

[Jezmi]

OTM.

if unions are a relic of the past, why are companies like walmart so keen to crush them? are we supposed to believe that big business is now totally benevolent?

naivety like this is dangerous imo and risks losing what we had to fight for in the first place. nothing was given willingly, just read the history books about the industrial revolution and you'll see what i mean.

Surely the unions don't fulfill the same function today as they did during the industrial revolution. During that period the working class went through a emancipation and the uions where a cause and an effect of that emancipation.
Today, society (western world) provides opportunities to develop and better one's life -- better in a wide sense, income, mental challenge, social status, etc. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that, I guess thats the way humanity works.
Unions aren't here to make sure that environments are safe or even that the pay is fair in comparison to other professions. Unions try to get as much as possible from negotiations, which makes a bit like the companies with who they negotiate.

One last question -- Do most of you believe you are born a worker or a boss? (this is putting it a bit crude, but you guys get it right). This is the impression i got from the 'ok, what is capitalism then?' thread, and a bit from this one.

 

[matt b]

Today, society (western world) provides opportunities to develop and better one's life -- better in a wide sense, income, mental challenge, social status, etc. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that, I guess thats the way humanity works. .

not true. in both the US and the UK social mobility has declined since the 1960s

(particularly in the US where real wages have actually dropped during this period, whilst the wealth of the top 1% has dramatically risen)

(In the UK social mobility has also declined since blair came to power)

Unions aren't here to make sure that environments are safe or even that the pay is fair in comparison to other professions. Unions try to get as much as possible from negotiations, which makes a bit like the companies with who they negotiate. .

this doesn't make sense- please explain

One last question -- Do most of you believe you are born a worker or a boss?

the overwhelming majority of people don't have a choice. you are not 'born' to be either.

 

[bassnation]

Surely the unions don't fulfill the same function today as they did during the industrial revolution. During that period the working class went through a emancipation and the uions where a cause and an effect of that emancipation.
Today, society (western world) provides opportunities to develop and better one's life -- better in a wide sense, income, mental challenge, social status, etc. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that, I guess thats the way humanity works.
Unions aren't here to make sure that environments are safe or even that the pay is fair in comparison to other professions. Unions try to get as much as possible from negotiations, which makes a bit like the companies with who they negotiate.

this isn't correct.

granted, the landscape has changed somewhat in the UK because theres very little maufacturing these days - but theres just as much need for unions now as theres ever been, particularly with the kind of conditions many people are working in with call centres, increasing erosion of employment rights etc. people still get exploited, messed about and paid shit wages for difficult jobs. if theres an economic downturn or they outsource your job one day, you might be unfortunate enough to see this happening.

and unions are concerned with safety for their members and whether pay is fair. thats the whole point of them. several LU strikes have been on this basis, on safety issues which the public wouldn't have even known about otherwise. good on them.

also we are only taking the west into consideration - if you look at places like south america, workers there are going through the same life and death struggles that we had to go through. union organisers are regularly assassinated by death squads that have been linked with big western companies like coca cola.

there are lots of reasons why not everyone becomes a lawyer or well paid businessman which are way too involved to go into here - but i certainly don't accept that its as simple as people choosing not to take the bountiful opportunities offered. you have to have been there to understand, its not enough to say "well i turned out ok, so everyone else must have chosen to be poor".

 

[john eden]

Surely the unions don't fulfill the same function today as they did during the industrial revolution.

Yes they do, but because of their inspring history of significant wins in the western world they have an easier time of it here, as things stand today (they may get worse tomorrow).

During that period the working class went through a emancipation and the uions where a cause and an effect of that emancipation.

OK then - hands up who feels emancipated? Anyone?

Apologies for my bad humour, but throughout the history of the TU movement there have ALWAYS been people who thought things had gone far enough - and that because a few victories had been won, the game was over. There is no need to guess which side of this antagonistic relationship the bosses were on, of course.

Today, society (western world) provides opportunities to develop and better one's life -- better in a wide sense, income, mental challenge, social status, etc. Obviously not everyone takes advantage of that, I guess thats the way humanity works.

Is your argument that some people are poor because they have (for reasons best known to them) failed to "take advantage" of the opportunities offered them? Because it seems undeniable that some people are born with greater opportunities than others, which scuppers that argument, imho.

Unions aren't here to make sure that environments are safe or even that the pay is fair in comparison to other professions. Unions try to get as much as possible from negotiations, which makes a bit like the companies with who they negotiate.

Unions and shop stewards play a FUNDAMENTAL role in workplace safety! Are you on crack? One of the many reasons the London Underground people went on strike last year was because of health and safety concerns. See also campaigns like Simon Jones Memorial Campaign which arose because the death of a temp worker in Brighton.

Whenever bosses ignore workers' safety in an outrageous bid to boost profits, unions are first in line to protect the workers. Same as it ever was.

One last question -- Do most of you believe you are born a worker or a boss? (this is putting it a bit crude, but you guys get it right). This is the impression i got from the 'ok, what is capitalism then?' thread, and a bit from this one.

I believe we live in a society which has class as one of its defining characteristics. It is undeniable that most of the richest 5% of the world were born into priviledged families, or simply got massively lucky.

 

[Jezmi]

not true. in both the US and the UK social mobility has declined since the 1960s

(particularly in the US where real wages have actually dropped during this period, whilst the wealth of the top 1% has dramatically risen)

(In the UK social mobility has also declined since blair came to power)

I don't see you disagree with me actually. I'm feel on an individual level, people can make big improvements. But I can see that on a class/minority/group (don't know the right word to use) level it has become less flexible. However the period you talk about is one of immigration and comes after a recovering period. And immigration is good for cashflow to the poorer countries, and perhaps even the social mobility of those countries.

this doesn't make sense- please explain

I think that unionleaders get corrupted by power, just like any other organisations or country. What I dislike is that 'it is done for the people'

the overwhelming majority of people don't have a choice. you are not 'born' to be either.

I used to think 'if you believe it, you can achieve it' which is not true and not fair either. However, if you cannot believe it, you won't achieve it. The way I see it, the main reason for not being able to believe in change is not being introduced to the ideas of change. Those ideas run through families and groups, and take time to develop. The western society is the most furtile ground for that development.

 

[Light Touch]

I reckon most people on Dissensus eithert are not musicians, and those that are don't have music as their primary source of income.

Personally I earn roundabout what a London tube driver does, but there is no way I'd want to do their job because the conditions are way worse than mine. The fact that I chose life as an office based charity drone rather than pursuing my "career" as a van driver is also relevant here.

I would hazard a guess that most people here are not bosses simply because most people are not bosses. That, or we've all spent most of our time and money on music rather than amassing capital.

True enough. Let me phrase it differently: "Culturally-involved individuals."

I mean, look at the forum category names. I see that, I don't think of corporate middle management.

 

[Jezmi]

I believe we live in a society which has class as one of its defining characteristics. It is undeniable that most of the richest 5% of the world were born into priviledged families, or simply got massively lucky.

This is what I meant when I said that what the unions do has changed. Before no one could start a factory except for a one of those 5%, and they had great power because of it. Now the possibilities have increased, that power has lessened and the 'factory owners' have to consider the employees more.
I also consider born inequal as part of humanity, the responsibility of all of us is to provide a certain minimum of opportunities. From there on it is the responsibility of the individuals.

BTW I am certainly not one of the 5% (quite ironic, my dad was a professional musician for most of my childhood)

 

[bassnation]

True enough. Let me phrase it differently: "Culturally-involved individuals."

I mean, look at the forum category names. I see that, I don't think of corporate middle management.

i'm self-employed - does that make me a boss, worker, or both?

 

[Light Touch]

well my girlfriend is a lawyer (hates it btw), and i don't think that takes much skill- you are not much more than a glorified admin assistant. i asked her (for my work) what skill you most needed to be a lawyer and she replied 'very high boredom threshold'
however solicitors earn quite a lot, but i'd argue that their 'value' is no more than bus drivers

yeah mate, wait until you get grief from your boss, harrassed, threatend with the sack, told to work stupid hours. oh look! no organised support and help from anyone- just you against the corporation. you will lose.

as mentioned above, nearly all the rights we take for granted have not been given to us by friendly individuals/corporations, they have been fought for very hard by unions etc- don't take that for granted.

Let me rephrase -- being a lawyer at a high level (top-level corporate, politics, high-profile representation) requires skill. There's a wide range of "lawyer" jobs.

Value, however -- that's subjective. I value lawyers, because I've used them, and want to become on that is effectual. I don't particularly value the guy who reviews the PR releases to make sure there's no libel.

As for the corporation winning -- yeah, that's how it works. They have the power of hiring and firing -- you have the power of choosing where to take your talents. If you have no talents, well, play ball. Or get talents.

 

[Light Touch]

OTM.

if unions are a relic of the past, why are companies like walmart so keen to crush them? are we supposed to believe that big business is now totally benevolent?

naivety like this is dangerous imo and risks losing what we had to fight for in the first place. nothing was given willingly, just read the history books about the industrial revolution and you'll see what i mean.

Speaking from limited personal experience dealing with WalMart, their motives are largely cost-control-oriented.

Are the benevolent? No. Only as much as the marketplace dictates.

Personally, I think their decision to eliminate the butcher position across the entire corporation, when one store's butchers attempted to unionize, was a stroke of genius. It said, "Don't do that."

Was it a nice thing to do? No. Was it good for shareholders? Yes.

That said, I know a lot of people who are glad to have WalMarts to work at.

 

[Light Touch]

I'm sure their 'high aspirations' extend further than doing jobs for peanuts. Not to mention being on the receiving end of racist propaganda about them coming over here and taking the jobs. No offence, but I find your argument selfish and patronising.

And my point is that through that hard work, they will achieve those sorts of things.

And for them to go through those sorts of cultural harassments, on behalf of themselves and their families -- I rep for that.

I'd love to make people not be racist, but come on, that's a fact of life. It's the people who can tune in out and transcend it, those are the people I rep for.

FWIW, I'm for opening the borders, not closing them. They do take jobs -- from lazy, spoiled workers. They should be commended.

I don't know what's patronizing about my argument -- perhaps you just don't agree.

 

[Light Touch]

Unions aren't here to make sure that environments are safe or even that the pay is fair in comparison to other professions. Unions try to get as much as possible from negotiations, which makes a bit like the companies with who they negotiate.

Bingo.

 

[Light Touch]

also we are only taking the west into consideration - if you look at places like south america, workers there are going through the same life and death struggles that we had to go through. union organisers are regularly assassinated by death squads that have been linked with big western companies like coca cola.

Good point. I'm in favor of union movements in developing nations, due to the work conditions and legal structures often existing there.

In developed nations, with strong legislative support for working conditions and minimum pay? No. Unions have done their jobs.

 

[Light Touch]

i'm self-employed - does that make me a boss, worker, or both?

I'd say both, but really, small businesspeople are a different breed altogether. There's the corporate/governmental machine of highly structured, highly specialized employment, and then the upstart businesses and organizations that are more dynamic in structure and skill demands.

I'd say that people who are on a message board like this one would likely be well-suited for entrepeneurism.

 

[bassnation]

I'd love to make people not be racist, but come on, that's a fact of life. It's the people who can tune in out and transcend it, those are the people I rep for

i guess this is what you mean by playing ball. keeping their mouths shut and not getting too uppity despite the exploitation, poverty and squalor. we've already seen where that gets us with new orleans. a powder keg waiting to explode.

 

[john eden]

i guess this is what you mean by playing ball. keeping their mouths shut and not getting too uppity despite the exploitation, poverty and squalor. we've already seen where that gets us with new orleans. a powder keg waiting to explode.

What I am coming round to is that there are some people who look at New Orleans and think "shit, what a terrible, unnecessary, tragic waste of human potential" and there are some people who think "hey wow, what fantastic opportunities this offers me as a shareholder!"

My suspicion is that I am materially poorer because I am in the former group.

 

[Canada J Soup]

As for the corporation winning -- yeah, that's how it works. They have the power of hiring and firing -- you have the power of choosing where to take your talents.

But why is that “how it works”? Why should workers be subordinate to amoral legal constructs that only exist because people agree work for them? As you point out, the only real power that the worker has is to choose where (and when, and for whom) to work. This is precisely why the organization of labor remains important.

In developed nations, with strong legislative support for working conditions and minimum pay? No. Unions have done their jobs.

I disagree. In the US in particular, I feel that it is patently not the case that the legislature protects workers. The process of getting elected relies on funding from corporate sources to such an extent that the majority of politicians serve their campaign financiers before their constituents. If workers in the US really were being properly represented, surely the minimum wage would have increased since 1997? Wouldn’t it be more difficult for corporations to use temporary workers in order to avoid paying for health and dental insurance, pension plans or unemployment benefits?

While labor unions are often far from perfect in how they function, but they provide a real (and realistic - walking away from a job is far from easy during a recession) way for workers to have their interests represented when they feel they are being exploited. Besides, if you can stand up for yourself, why rely on someone else to do it for you?

Also, their logos are cool.