Workers Of The World Unite

Workers Arise! Overthrow the Proletariat! -- PhlIp

Interesting title, eh?

No, the topic of this thread isn't Marxism, or Marx's famous call for a GloriousProletariatRevolution?. That was tried, and the results were generally disastrous. See AnimalFarm for a concise explanation of why. (When you inject chaos into a system to disrupt the prevalent order, it is quite difficult to control the shape of the new order that will eventually arise out of the chaos. Assuming an order does arise.)

The topic of this thread is related, however - in that the workers of the world aren't united, making it easy to play them off one another.

One case in point is the Wiki page IsGlobalismThreateningTechCareers, which really should be called IsGlobalismThreateningTechCareersInTheUnitedStates?. That page makes the observation that outsourcing of many tech jobs (SW engineering and programmer/analyst positions in particular) from the U.S. to countries such as India or China, with a large pool of skilled technical labor, and wages lower by an order of magnitude. Underyling the page is an assumption (disputed by several posters there) that this is a bad thing and that the jobs rightfully belong to higher-paid Americans.

Which is a symptom of the larger problem.

Another case in point is the recent longshoreman (dockworker) lockouts in the various heavy seaports on the United States west coast. In that lockout, veiled threats were issued that cargo bound for west coast ports might instead be unloaded in Mexico, and then trucked to the United States. As Mexican dockworkers are (I believe) not unionized, many longshoremen (despite what the I stands for in ILWU - International Longshore and Warehouse Union - http:www.ilwu.org) complained long and loud about "Mexican scabs" taking away work that was rightfully theirs. Of course, the longshoremen have good reason to fear globalization; the ships that they load and unload are generally flying FlagsOfConvenience?, and manned by non-union sailors who are quite thoroughly exploited.

But regardless of that, the longshoremen's attitude to their Mexican counterparts is a symptom of the larger problem.

The ScreenActorsGuild?, the union that represents waiters (whoops, excuse me, actors - HarHarHar) in Hollywood loves to piss and moan about "runaway production" - that is productions filmed anywhere but Hollywood. Part of it is a reaction against "right-to-work" laws (which invalidate many SAG contracts) in other states (and in Canada), but part of it seems to be the notion that only Hollywood actors are are entitled to make Hollywood movies.

Which is a symptom of the larger problem.

All throughout the industrialized world are people calling for tighter controls on immigration. Some of this is based on outright racism, but some of this is based on the fear of dilution of the local labor pool, of foreigners taking jobs that belong to them.

And that is a symptom of the larger problem.

The problem is that labor, to succeed, needs to be a global movement. Labor in the U.S. took a big step when the AFL-CIO was formed; as member unions no longer were in competition with each other, and could negotiate with management in a united front. Back in the days of expensive shipping, even more expensive communications, and high tariffs, this was all that was necessary for labor to succeed.

Not anymore.

The labor pool is global; corporations can go wherever they want to find workers. This die has been cast. Technology has left its mark.

Some advocate tariffs and other trade controls as a means to improve the lot of "workers". This works, but only for a short time. Unless the country involved is an economic powerhouse, domestic industries are quickly put at a disadvantage, resulting in overall economic loss - with relaxation of "burdensome rules and regulations" often proposed as the solution. Furthermore, trade controls improve the lot of domestic workers, but screw over their overseas brethren - and invite retaliation.

There has to be a better way.

And there is.

Labor unions in the West (where their activities are protected by law) went through many years of pain and suffering, of crooked cops and Pinkerton men, of company towns and strikebreaking soldiers, to win the right to organize and bargain collectively. http://www.visa2003.com/visa/immigrant/familymemb.htm In many other parts of the world, labor unions have a difficult time organizing (or being effective) due to outright bans, being co-opted by the government, or corrupt/lax law enforcement. If workers in the west were to lend their economic might to support their overseas brethren and to help secure for them the right to organize as well, the lot of all might improve.

(Until, at least, management figures out a way to outsource work to Mars, in which case the cycle will repeat.)

Some general strategies for labor to consider...

Work to end FlagsOfConvenience?. Imagine how much more powerful labor would be if the world's shipping lines were union.
Work to modify WTO accords to treat countries with adequate labor protections (right to unionize and strike, reasonable work week, reasonable health/safety laws) differently from those without.
Work to remove national barriers to emigration and immigration. Let people freely move wherever they like, to work for whatever employer (of whatever nationality) will hire them.

Why would anyone believe that the workers of the world will be a better off if they are dominated by the leaders of a monopolistic labor union, rather than by a number of corporate and government leaders with competing interests?

Corporate leaders generally do NOT have workers' best interests at heart; in many cases and many places they have a fiduciary duty to screw over labor if it benefits shareholders.

Government leaders, assuming they aren't corrupt, can be effective in setting policy. On the other hand, they aren't usually effective at fairly resolving specific labor disputes, other than to act as referee.

Labor unions are, in theory at least, democratically elected by their members - and have the employees' interests at heart. Many, if not most unions are in fact democratic in practice. Some unions, of course, have been long known for corruption, organized crime influence, and the like. (Which sounds like a lot of government and corporate leaders, come to think).

That's the point. Many governments are, in theory at least, democratically elected by their members - and have the citizens' interests at heart. Corporations, in theory at least, have an interest in keeping their workers happy and in obeying the law. Why would anyone believe that union leaders, especially the leaders of a single worldwide union, are more likely to be beneficent and free of corruption than are these other types of leaders?

Just as certain tactics should be unavailable to management; certain tactics should also be unavailable to labor. Physical threats or violence of any sort should have no place in workplace negotiations.

Don't fool yourself. Corporations only have an interest in keeping their workers happy and obeying the law for as long as it increases shareholder value. The second that shareholder value is not increased by keeping worker x happy, or following law y, you end up with things like Worldcom and Enron.

Who's fooling whom? Unions only have an interest in keeping workers happy and obeying the law as long as it keeps the union leaders prosperous and in power. The second that union leader prosperity is not increased by keeping worker x happy, or following law y, ...

[new voice]

Money is power. Corporations have money. Corporations therefore have power. In particular, the rich old white men who control corporations have power. Un-organized labor does not. Corporations use their power to control their workers, as cost-effectively as possible - usually through purchasing governments (see http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/). The fear of potential corruption of union leaders in the face of the clear and obvious fact of uncontrolled corporate greed is cynical at best. Corporate thugs (often wearing bought-and-paid-for government uniforms) can do much to end violence by putting down their own weapons. If Ken Lay's guilt about the pensions he stole from Enron workers (not to mention the billions he stole from the residents of California) surfaces as fear that something "violent" might happen to him - I say let him lose some sleep.

[Bad examples. Enron and World Com did not act to increase shareholder value. They acted to increase shareholders' perception of value. If they'd really acted to increase shareholder value their employees' pension plans would still be worth something.]

But,

TheBeehiveIsUnstoppable.

I think it's a fine example. The "shareholder value" argument is a diversionary smokescreen. Kenneth Lay acted to increase Kenneth Lay Value. As evidenced by the subsequent collapse of Enron, he didn't care one iota about shareholder value. What he did was transfer millions of worker dollars into his own pocket. He and his lovely wife are not living in poverty today, nor are they guests of a federal or state penitentiary institution. This is about money and power. Kenneth Lay has it, and he and his cronies will continue to do whatever they can to get more of it. Organized opposition is the only way they will be stopped.

Organized opposition would be led by individuals who seek to further their own interests. The primary goals of most organizations are to increase their power and to enrich their leaders. The larger an organization grows, the less well off the rank and file are. Again, why is there a belief that being "united" (that is, ruled) by union leaders and their cronies would be better for the world's workers than the status quo?

[Because uniting has worked so well in the past. It isn't true that the benefit to the individual is inversely proportional to an organization's size. Large scale organization of labor at the beginning of the 20th century provided benefits like the 5 day week that most of us take for granted today.]

I've always found it interesting that there are many people who have no objection to those with common interests organizing - except when that groups happen to be workers. That's OK to organize, but not OK to monopolize. Then, organization is seen as tantamount to treason. (It seems that some have a mindset that workers are done such a great favor by employers to be given jobs, that their first duty ought to be to that employer - not to themselves, their families, their country, their God, their community, or to the law. I call this attitude the BobCratchettSyndrome, after the character in AchristmasCarolBook?. Under such mindset, collective bargaining, or any other technique to improve one's pay or working conditions, is seen as a breach of that implied duty.)

There are a few reasons why many people object to unions. First, the well-known cases of corruption have tainted unions (it may be unfair, but that's how it is). Second, many see the purpose of a union as ensuring that employees work as little as possible. Third, many object to the idea that they must join and pay dues to an organization just to be able to get a job. I don't think anyone believes that employers are doing any great favors for their employees or that workers don't have a right to seek better conditions; the problem is that unions are associated with criminality, sloth, and strong-arm tactics.

Aside from the negative stereotypes, many people prefer the non-union way of working, and object to organization of unions at their workplaces simply because they don't things to change against their wishes.

It seems like a lot of those people who "prefer the non-union way of working" don't seem to like it when - oh my gosh! - the directors of their employer loot their pension fund, offshore their job, and collect multi-million dollar "retention bonuses" along the way. Perhaps some neo-conservatives are getting an education in the school of hard knocks these days - see IsGlobalismThreateningTechCareers.

Most NeoConservatism? revolves around the idea that labor, and therefore products, should be cheap; http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/. This policy doesn't always work out; see the Nixon farm policies aimed at making food as cheap as possible. What it did was destroy the price structures and make a large portion of American farmers wards of the state...

[That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Many companies don't have unions and their directors don't loot pension funds. We don't have to pick one of those two options.]

Of course it's not a dichotomy. Many unions are neither corrupt nor tainted, and many union workers work hard every day. Nevertheless, there is a tension between two poles. There has been movement towards the corporate end of this tension, and some of us feel that our economy and culture is suffering from the resulting imbalance.