28785: Kawonabo1500: (reply) Pierre (Reply) 28780: Verteuil (reply) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Kawonabo1500@aol.com

Patrick,

If I understand your presentation correctly, it seems, for you, unless there
is full employment or employment for the unemployed majority, you see no need
for unions and collective bargaining. And that in any case, the State must
enforce its laws concerning minimum wage, holidays, paid notice, physical or
sexual abuse of workers.
            I agree with the idea of full employment. The question is under
what conditions? During slavery, there was full employment. Today slavery
conditions of work are unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The slaves 
fought
valiantly wherever slavery existed to get rid of it. The Haitian Slaves
carried out the first and only successful Anti-Slavery Revolution in the world. 
I
also agree that the State has the obligation to enforce laws on the rights of
workers.
            What you must understand quickly is that the production unit is a
dictatorship by nature. In order for  workers to survive and live in dignity,
they must form Unions and bargain collectively in every production unit in
existence. The production unit might be a factory, manufacture or industry. So
therefore, it doesn't matter how many people are employed at any time in
society. The workers must organize themselves in struggle as the guiding light 
for
both potential workers and the unemployed as well. Here we are not referring to
status-quo/traditional careerist union organizers.
            As for the state of jobs in the so-called "developed world", they
are disappearing massively due to delocalization. They are leaving to places
like China, Indonesia, Philippines, and Haiti where there is cheap labor.
         I must add, contrary to what you think, our fundamentally different
perspectives did bring us to fundamentally different conclusions.

M. Pierre

In a message dated 7/29/2006 1:38:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
corbetre@webster.edu writes:
From: Patrick de Verteuil "pdeverteuil@yahoo.com"

It does not appear necessary or inevitable that viewing a problem from
different perspectives (Middle class or working class) should bring one to
different conclusions. Maybe we should start by laying out broad objectives:
should one be looking out for the individual or the national interests; the
interests of one particular group of workers or the interests of the
(unfortunately) vast majority who have no jobs at all.
If the employer can find ten (or a hundred) replacements for any
dissatisfied worker the union is reduced to playing the role of the spoiler.
Haiti's problem is not that some (or all) workers are abused but rather the
dismal fact that the large majority have no employers to exploit them. If
jobs were the norm (as they are in the developed world) and unemployment the
exception, then collective bargaining and unions would make sense as the
negotiations would take place between relative equals. Hence I believe that
right thinking people should at this stage be attempting to create more
jobs, not better jobs. It is probably better for you to see your brother
hired than for you to get a raise as you are probably carrying your
unemployed brother and his family on your back. If you are a member of the
minority "employed" you are presently among the privileged.
The state passes laws which it should work hard to enforce. These laws say
that the employer must pay a minimum wage, must give paid notice, must give
paid holidays, may not strike or sexually abuse his workers etc. etc.
If I am still around when work becomes the norm rather than the exception I
will argue in favor of unions and collective bargaining: until then the only
purpose they serve is to provide work for the union organizers.