nyc transit strike

[mms]

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.

my guess is that you haven't had much experience in the world of full time or part time employment yet. apologies if i'm wrong. esp as every company i have worked for seems to activley and knowingly diregard laws.

 

[redcrescent]

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

So it's OK for butchers at a Mexican WalMart to join a union while their US counterparts lose their job attempting to do the same thing? Get real.

It's common knowledge that one of the reasons why multinational corporations can afford to act in this way is because they can easily move operations to countries where there are no unions, or no independent unions (e.g. China, the only place WM allows "unionized" "associates"). And the MNCs aren't exactly going to encourage them once they set up shop there, are they? Local governments, starved of funds, will tolerate and in some cases actively support their repressive policies.

But if you say you are in favor of unions in developing countries (what is that, about 85% of the world's population?), at exactly what stage of economic development do labor unions become superfluous, in your opinion? Where do you draw the line, at a certain level of national income or what?

There's enough to criticize about unions, I agree, but certainly not enough to think their members would be better off without them.

I simply don't see things like a universal insurance, pensions, childcare allowance and a worldwide minimum wage happening anytime soon.

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.

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

"Cost control" sounds a lot less offensive than profit-maximizing, but it's one and the same.
This narrow "it was good for the shareholders" perspective is terribly short-sighted. You can't use that to justify everything from the destruction of jobs to the destruction of the environment.

This mantra-like repetition of "the marketplace dictates" and "it's good for shareholders" is a great way to delegate responsibility from oneself. We'll regret this type of thinking before long, methinks.

To applaud the sacking of workers from a company and call it a "stroke of genius" is borderline cynical in my book. You go and tell that to someone who has lost their job trying to defend themselves.
Why not applaud good entrepreneurship which creates, not destroys, jobs instead?

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

Sure. WM probably having bankrupted most of the small businesses in the surrounding areas in the first place.

 

[3underscore]

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.

I would disagree on a large part - a lot of major corporate work is pedantic arguing over clause 314.a.ii) on Force Majuere that will probably be completely unnecessary, save for about £6000 in lawyers bills for the time arguing over it. A lot of the work is proforma based.

Political - maybe. A lot of the Financial Law, yes - the lawyer actually has to understand what is going on (turning the tables somewhat from them enforcing the structure) and it can be very difficult.

There is a part in glorifying your own job going on here. Driving a tube train is a skill. A skill you don't have. You would rather be a lawyer, find it interesting and want that skill. Good for you, but many others will not be so excited. The real true skill, and value, in a lot of jobs is that people have enforced a framework to make their job seem more complex, place barriers to entry (law school) and pay themselves more, upon which they don't seem to care for unionisation as, typically, they are the ones up against the union trying to change something not to the aid of the people.

 

[Jezmi]

The reason why law jobs require a higher pay is because the need different skills. To you it might seem to be arguing about miniscule things, but lawyers are paid a lot of money to find or prevent cracks in the system.


To follow up on other posts on this thread -- I was brought up in Holland, which has extensive social services. It is impossible to fire someone! That is not a joke, only if someone steals something but otherwise it's impossible. Companies pay full wages of sick personell for two years! The result? Of a working population of 6 million, 1 million (1 in 6!!!) was at least partially off sick.......
The joke that went round was that having a job wasn't a duty, but a right to have. I don't think that is healthy for society.

 

[bassnation]

The joke that went round was that having a job wasn't a duty, but a right to have. I don't think that is healthy for society.

neither is it healthy to have employment law skewed in favour of corporations where people have no rights whatsoever, work themselves into an early grave for a pittance after receiving a pension worth nothing when the company directors earn millions.

i'd rather the dutch or the danish model than the american one. where do you draw the line?

 

[Jezmi]

where do you draw the line?

Where indeed...
That is the big question, i'd rather have the dutch system than the us one aswell, it's just it has to be somewhere in between, but where? and can you keep it there?
The greatest good for the greatest number? When the greatest good is so different in any persons mind....

luckily we have a forum to discuss, innit

 

[john eden]

Where indeed...
That is the big question, i'd rather have the dutch system than the us one aswell, it's just it has to be somewhere in between, but where? and can you keep it there?

No you can't keep it there, because we live in a capitalist society, where there will always be a drive towards maximising profits.

This means that there will always be some elements of the ruling class which are trying to erode workers' rights, and that these attempts will often (but not always) be resisted.

It's the overly simplistic "tug o' war" model of the class struggle.

 

[Light Touch]

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.



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.

The difference between us is that I do not presume the value of a union. Unions today are largely devoted to a nearly mindless pursuit of higher pay, greater benefits, and more refined working conditions. All are admirable, however, the degree to which strikes like the NYC transit strike take this goal go beyond simple wants and into the realm of coercion.

In my eyes, if workers are relatively health, well-treated, compensated fairly (in relation to the market for labor), and so forth, then I don't see the purpose of a union -- or, at very least, I don't see the need for damaging strikes, such as the NYC transit strike.

 

[Light Touch]

my guess is that you haven't had much experience in the world of full time or part time employment yet. apologies if i'm wrong. esp as every company i have worked for seems to activley and knowingly diregard laws.

I've been working for about 12 years, the last 5 of which have been in corporate legal work.

Most companies do actively disregard laws -- generally those laws where the cost of compliance exceeds the cost of non-compliance.

It's business, it's about profit -- it should surprise no one.

 

[Light Touch]

So it's OK for butchers at a Mexican WalMart to join a union while their US counterparts lose their job attempting to do the same thing? Get real.

It's common knowledge that one of the reasons why multinational corporations can afford to act in this way is because they can easily move operations to countries where there are no unions, or no independent unions (e.g. China, the only place WM allows "unionized" "associates"). And the MNCs aren't exactly going to encourage them once they set up shop there, are they? Local governments, starved of funds, will tolerate and in some cases actively support their repressive policies.

But if you say you are in favor of unions in developing countries (what is that, about 85% of the world's population?), at exactly what stage of economic development do labor unions become superfluous, in your opinion? Where do you draw the line, at a certain level of national income or what?

There's enough to criticize about unions, I agree, but certainly not enough to think their members would be better off without them.

I simply don't see things like a universal insurance, pensions, childcare allowance and a worldwide minimum wage happening anytime soon.


"Cost control" sounds a lot less offensive than profit-maximizing, but it's one and the same.
This narrow "it was good for the shareholders" perspective is terribly short-sighted. You can't use that to justify everything from the destruction of jobs to the destruction of the environment.

This mantra-like repetition of "the marketplace dictates" and "it's good for shareholders" is a great way to delegate responsibility from oneself. We'll regret this type of thinking before long, methinks.

To applaud the sacking of workers from a company and call it a "stroke of genius" is borderline cynical in my book. You go and tell that to someone who has lost their job trying to defend themselves.
Why not applaud good entrepreneurship which creates, not destroys, jobs instead?


Sure. WM probably having bankrupted most of the small businesses in the surrounding areas in the first place.

I do not, in the least bit, blame WM or other MNCs for prohibiting unions. They are EXTREMELY expensive to a company; that's why so many major companies fight unionization in drastic ways, such as the WM butcher example.

In my eyes, unions are useful where workers are unable to work in a safe, healthy environment (relative to their line of work) and are compelled to work by force. Economic scenarios are going to be different wherever you go -- a $0.50/hour job in Colombia may be reasonable, if local wages are $0.40, $0.50, or even $0.65. Does that hurt workers in developed nations? Yes. Their efforts are simply not worth significantly more than that of workers in developing nations, and I can't see a compelling case to artificially inflate wages. I don't think there's a bright line as to where a union loses its value; but it's clear, to me anyway, that a union is more valuable in a poorly-regulated mining industry in Africa than it is in service industries in the US or UK.

As far as profit maximization is concerned, you're right, it's two sides of the same coin. But WalMart creates hundreds of jobs every day -- just because they don't permit butchers to unionize does not mean that they are just out to fire people. WalMart is one of the largest employers in the entire world, and their success (and relative lack of complaint from their employee base) should be indicative of their value in the job marketplace.

(Further, it's a bit of a myth that WalMart and other "big box" retailers destroy small business -- they generally destroy weak and unsuccessful small businesses, though they often force other local retailers into niche or premium markets. The low cost market is best served by large corporations with efficient economies of scale.)

 

[Light Touch]

I would disagree on a large part - a lot of major corporate work is pedantic arguing over clause 314.a.ii) on Force Majuere that will probably be completely unnecessary, save for about £6000 in lawyers bills for the time arguing over it. A lot of the work is proforma based.

Political - maybe. A lot of the Financial Law, yes - the lawyer actually has to understand what is going on (turning the tables somewhat from them enforcing the structure) and it can be very difficult.

There is a part in glorifying your own job going on here. Driving a tube train is a skill. A skill you don't have. You would rather be a lawyer, find it interesting and want that skill. Good for you, but many others will not be so excited. The real true skill, and value, in a lot of jobs is that people have enforced a framework to make their job seem more complex, place barriers to entry (law school) and pay themselves more, upon which they don't seem to care for unionisation as, typically, they are the ones up against the union trying to change something not to the aid of the people.

Oh, I won't argue that lawyering is a self-serving field. But the point is that not everyone can do it, just as not everyone can do other things, like being a doctor or driving a bus. The point is that lawyers, doctors, and such are often highly specialized, highly educated, and the time, energy, and resources it would take for Joe Average to become Joe Lawyer or Joe Doctor is significantly greater than becoming Joe Bus Driver.

Are there unreasonable obstacles to becoming a lawyer or a doctor? Perhaps. But I wouldn't equivocate a lawyer to a bus driver, because, simply, lots of people can easily learn to drive a bus, but significantly less people can easily learn to practice law or medicine.

(Honestly, I don't have a lot of reverence for the practice of law, because so many people do it so poorly. That said, I'm not going to work for less than the market prices for my job, unless I'm being compensated in other ways, such as personal satisfaction.)

 

[Light Touch]

neither is it healthy to have employment law skewed in favour of corporations where people have no rights whatsoever, work themselves into an early grave for a pittance after receiving a pension worth nothing when the company directors earn millions.

i'd rather the dutch or the danish model than the american one. where do you draw the line?

Ever live here?

Few people work themselves into early graves for a pittance in US. As my Kenyan college buddy said to me once, "Jesus, even the poor people are fat here."

 

[bassnation]

I've been working for about 12 years, the last 5 of which have been in corporate legal work.

Most companies do actively disregard laws -- generally those laws where the cost of compliance exceeds the cost of non-compliance.

It's business, it's about profit -- it should surprise no one.

which is exactly why you need a union to counter the bastards.

the defence rests.

 

[bassnation]

Ever live here?

Few people work themselves into early graves for a pittance in US. As my Kenyan college buddy said to me once, "Jesus, even the poor people are fat here."

i've never been to the states, so i can't dispute that.

however, like most people i saw the footage from new orleans. those people didn't look overfed and priveledged to me. surely theres poverty in america? you can't have rich people with out poor counterparts, thats not how capitalism works.

and in the uk, at least, the poor areas have the highest levels of obesity, not to mention the lowest life expectancy.

 

[mms]

I've been working for about 12 years, the last 5 of which have been in corporate legal work.

Most companies do actively disregard laws -- generally those laws where the cost of compliance exceeds the cost of non-compliance.

It's business, it's about profit -- it should surprise no one.

so we are to expect that profit is more important than the law and rights and welfare of citizens that are protected by these laws by your reasoning ?

You say you work doing corporate legal work, does this mean you work protecting the interests of corporations?

 

[Jezmi]

No you can't keep it there, because we live in a capitalist society, where there will always be a drive towards maximising profits.

This means that there will always be some elements of the ruling class which are trying to erode workers' rights, and that these attempts will often (but not always) be resisted.

It's the overly simplistic "tug o' war" model of the class struggle.

I don't totally agree with this though. I don't think unions and governments have quite the impact they think. Certainly with globalisation, companies will find ways to get things done.
This is the good side of capitalism, it stimulates development. I view all development as progress, even if sometimes a step back has to be taken in able to take two steps forward.
Without all the money medicine/education/transport/whatever else wouldn't have been what it is.
The bad thing of capitalism, in my view, is that the incentive for development is greed/materialism. Sure it's fun, I enjoy buying but every now and then I'm embarresed of myself. I don't think humanity is ready for a different incentive for development yet, we're pretty basic creatures still.

 

[Canada J Soup]

In my eyes, if workers are relatively health, well-treated, compensated fairly (in relation to the market for labor), and so forth, then I don't see the purpose of a union -- or, at very least, I don't see the need for damaging strikes, such as the NYC transit strike.

The notion that market forces should be relied on to determine what constitutes good health, proper treatment and fair compensation demands that labor be collectively bargained. The only power that the union has when bargaining is the threat of having its members withhold their labor. However little you may value the skills required to be a bus driver in NYC (something that anybody who has driven in Manhattan traffic will probably dispute), it’s obvious that the value of all of them showing up for work on a given day is pretty high. That’s what they are bargaining with and that’s why the strike was necessary.

As my Kenyan college buddy said to me once, "Jesus, even the poor people are fat here."

I guess this would look like a positive thing to someone from a country that has been stricken by famine after famine for over 30 years, but you cannot seriously be proposing that the endemic obesity in the US is somehow indicative of a healthy society. The poor here are fat because they subsist on a diet of fattening processed food that is low in nutritional value but generates high profit margins due to the inexpensive ingredients and extended shelf life. This is partially because the food is readily available, partially because it is heavily advertised and partially because it is cheap. It is extremely difficult to eat healthily on a budget in most urban areas, doubly so in poorer ones (something which is compounded by the fact that few people have enough time for the extended preparation of meals). Try to find a loaf of bread made without high fructose corn syrup in Bushwick sometime.

 

[ripley]

Ever live here?

Few people work themselves into early graves for a pittance in US."

Interesting. Do you have evidence for this?
There is actually a host of research about life expectancy and income in the US.

Most recently there is a study done at Harvard School of Public Health on life expectancy, that shows the correlation between income and life expectancy.
The average difference in lifespan between the wealthiest and poorest in America is 14 years.
(Vicente Navarro, ed., The Political Economy of Social Inequalities: Consequences for Health and Quality of Life (Amityville, N.Y.: Baywood, 2002).
(also see this article for a nice summary of the situation of the working poor - of whom there undeniably more than there used to be, and many many more than in many other first world nations. I mean come on - is the US, the second wealthiest country in the world, supposed to be compared to Kenya? How about the UK, Germany, Norway (the only country wealthier per capita)?

Did you know that most of the US productivity comes from the fact that we work longer hours than most other first world countries (213 hours more/year!), not because we work more efficiently?

Although maybe we are more like Brazil these days, did you know the 2005 UN World Development Report is now discussing the US in its Report, because the UN says parts of the US are as bad off as the third world?

Images from New Orleans should have made that perfectly clear.

and at the other end of life, poor people die off before they get the chance to work themselves into an early grave
The US is 36th in the world for infant mortality rates. Behind Cuba, Czech republic and Macau? It's the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of the income of the US.
it's not the children of the wealthy that are dying. And black infant mortality rates are twice as high as white.

lastly - regarding

In my eyes, if workers are relatively health, well-treated, compensated fairly (in relation to the market for labor), and so forth, then I don't see the purpose of a union -- or, at very least, I don't see the need for damaging strikes, such as the NYC transit strike.

how do you think they got to be in that position? It's not because of the goodwill of the employer. usually it's because they have a union. Market forces include the contest between employers trying to haggle down wages and workers trying to hang on to them. If being in a union allows workers more bargaining power, that's as much a market force as an employer considering closing a plant that tries to organize, or threatening to move production to another country.
Even if workers were not in a union that helped them be in a good position (not like the transit workers), what ensures they will stay in that position? As you point out, it's not a business' job to keep its workers' living standards up - that's why they need a union. To defend that position. And striking is their last resort, it's their bargaining chip that their employers will actually respond to. As they did in this case, where the strike was a success (cheers!)