NationStates Jolt Archive

I just listened to this interesting video regarding the sustained attack on worker's rights by Corporate America, and thought it was so interesting I'd share it and generate discussion on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD9PpRe-KXs&feature=related

gone off the whole stalinism now?

Could someone post an audio transcript. This school computer is permaneantly muted.

Could someone post an audio transcript. This school computer is permaneantly muted.

its just about how the US is the only industrialized country to deny the human right to unionize and all the laws being broken by companies just firing left right and center

I don't know about parts 2 and 3 Noam Chomsky is a walking sleeping pill

Nevermind that we DO have unions...

Hi, writer's guild!

its just about how the US is the only industrialized country to deny the human right to unionize

Last time I checked, we have unions in the US.

Last time I checked, we have unions in the US.

Comparatively few, and comparatively weak. And our anti-union legislation is very much an exception.

gone off the whole stalinism now?

Yeah, Chomsky is as anti-Leninist as they come.

Comparatively few, and comparatively weak. And our anti-union legislation is very much an exception.The only proper union in the US that I know of is United Steelworkers. That's it.

The big problem with Unions in the US is that they have gotten way to political.

Actually, labor in the US is exceptionally apolitical, going back to Samuel Gompers. It's one of the reasons we have no major social democratic party.

The only proper union in the US that I know of is United Steelworkers. That's it.

Which started in Pittsburgh but even now they are losing power. The big problem with Unions in the US is that they have gotten way to political.

And our anti-union legislation is very much an exception.

shit, we're still operating on a system that harry fucking truman vetoed as being in fundamental conflict with our alleged societal principles.

Yeah, Chomsky is as anti-Leninist as they come.

awww our little EA is growing up :)

Last time I checked, we have unions in the US.

are they as powerful as Poland's though? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/30/newsid_4559000/4559293.stm)

(I've been waiting to use the BBC's on this day for awhile now)

Which started in Pittsburgh but even now they are losing power. The big problem with Unions in the US is that they have gotten way to political.The problem is they're not nearly political enough.

The problem is they're not nearly political enough.

The problem is...they blame everyone but themselves for some of the troubles that occur. When a strike occurs, it is both sides' fault. Not just one side.

The problem is...they blame everyone but themselves for some of the troubles that occur. When a strike occurs, it is both sides' fault. Not just one side.

The fact that you consider a strike as a "problem" that's the "fault" of any body is remarkably telling of your rather...myopic perspective.

A strike is a bargaining tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it's a damned good one.

The problem is...they blame everyone but themselves for some of the troubles that occur. When a strike occurs, it is both sides' fault. Not just one side.

What if one side is being completely unreasonable?

The fact that you consider a strike as a "problem" that's the "fault" of any body is remarkably telling of your rather...myopic perspective.

A strike is a bargaining tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it's a damned good one.

It's also pretty much part of any free market. It's one of the powers that workers have. The free choice not to work.

It's odd, therefore, that unions are associated with planned economies.

It always tickles me to hear wealthy people like Chomsky harp about class war.

It always tickles me to hear wealthy people like Chomsky harp about class war.

not really arguing with anything he is saying though or making it any less true

not really arguing with anything he is saying though or making it any less true

It does make him a gigantic hypocrite, though, screaming "Waaah, rich people are all evil!" from his posh mansion. It would be as hypocritical as, say, George W. Bush criticizing the Democrats for being huge spenders.

Yeah, Chomsky is as anti-Leninist as they come.

Anti-Lenin, maybe, but not anti-Leninist. He has drooled over his fair share of Third World leftist tyrants.

Read here (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf). See what Chomsky says in his own words, and watch all his arguments get thoroughly torn to shreds.

What if one side is being completely unreasonable?

The problem is, who do we know is telling the truth when things hit the papers. They both say that both sides are being unreasonable. Hence the truth lies in the middle of what they are both saying. I challenged one Union to back up their assertions and they left after a few minutes. Didn't help their cause any when they even admitted that going out on strike hurts them and the students but that's a different part of the story. At least there was no strike in that case (which would have sucked for the ed majors in a math class that would have to be suspended if a strike occured).

Can one side be unreasonable? Yes but when both sides won't give on their positions? Whose being unreasonable there?

It does make him a gigantic hypocrite, though, screaming "Waaah, rich people are all evil!" from his posh mansion. It would be as hypocritical as, say, George W. Bush criticizing the Democrats for being huge spenders.if he invests the wealth he gets through speaking engagements and book revenue back into the industries he's criticizing, maybe he would be hypocritical - but I've certainly never heard him say a word about oppressive universities or the military-linguistics complex...

It does make him a gigantic hypocrite, though, screaming "Waaah, rich people are all evil!" from his posh mansion. It would be as hypocritical as, say, George W. Bush criticizing the Democrats for being huge spenders.

so what hes saying is right and the only argument you can bring up is he likes money?

Anti-Lenin, maybe, but not anti-Leninist. He has drooled over his fair share of Third World leftist tyrants.

however he strongly support anarcho-syndicalism and works promoting anarchist ideas

odd that

Read here (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf). See what Chomsky says in his own words, and watch all his arguments get thoroughly torn to shreds.

read the first fact about Naom Chomsky "claiming" that living in eastern Europe was better than a US tyranny which I'd assume means the regimes of for example Republic of Vietnam (which I guess is rather true considering some of the cold war allies of the US)

I couldn't be bothered after that

Can one side be unreasonable? Yes but when both sides won't give on their positions? Whose being unreasonable there?

I find it perfectly reasonable for a party to refuse to give on their positions when their position is advocating for basic work necessities like safe enviornments, a reasonable work day, a living wage, and things like that.

A lot of people chide unions saying they should "be more reasonable". Fuck that. If industries actually gave workers the basic necessities for their health, safety, survivale, and reasonable wage, 90% of labor strikes would be irrelevant.

A union in no way should "give on their positions" on things that they should have anyway.

Read here (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf). See what Chomsky says in his own words, and watch all his arguments get thoroughly torn to shreds.

Nothing there indicates support for Leninism... and in any case, the rebuttals are mostly non-persuasive.

so what hes saying is right and the only argument you can bring up is he likes money?

No and no. He does love money, though.

read the first fact about Naom Chomsky "claiming" that living in eastern Europe was better than a US tyranny which I'd assume means the regimes of for example Republic of Vietnam (which I guess is rather true considering some of the cold war allies of the US)

I couldn't be bothered after that

Don't "assume" anything.

Keep reading.

Keep reading.without context on the chomsky quotes there's no point reading it.

It does make him a gigantic hypocrite, though, screaming "Waaah, rich people are all evil!" from his posh mansion.

Well, it would, if his arguments in any way resembled "rich people are all evil."

Don't "assume" anything.

Precisely. Don't think about what Chomsky actually met. Just trust Paul Bagdanor.

Can one side be unreasonable? Yes but when both sides won't give on their positions? Whose being unreasonable there?

So, if each worker is paid $35,000 a year and the company want to keep it the same but the union want to secure an increase? Each side gives a little and they meet in the middle!

But say the company want to drop wages to $10,000. Do the same rules apply? What if the union demands a private jet per employee?

No and no. He does love money, though.

1) then give some arguments don't just call hypocrite without any other input
2) well he isn't Jesus nor can you expect him to be Diogenes

Don't "assume" anything.

can I assume the link is biased to a certain degree? can I also assume you also follow such....unprofessional sources?

Keep reading.

The Lie: “In the Soviet sphere of influence, torture appears to have been on the decline since the death of Stalin… Since it has declined in the Soviet sphere since the death of Stalin, it would appear that this cancerous growth is largely a Free World phenomenon.”

The Truth: Until the late 1980s, the Soviets ran 1,000 concentration camps where at least 2million inmates endured constant violence. Torture was systematic in Soviet satellites in the Third World

actually it did fall after Stalin died, so I continue?

Well, it would, if his arguments in any way resembled "rich people are all evil."

It does, just not in those exact words.

I find it perfectly reasonable for a party to refuse to give on their positions when their position is advocating for basic work necessities like safe enviornments, a reasonable work day, a living wage, and things like that.

Now the big question...what is considered reasonable work and living wage? Also, what if they are not complaining about safe environments?

A lot of people chide unions saying they should "be more reasonable". Fuck that. If industries actually gave workers the basic necessities for their health, safety, survivale, and reasonable wage, 90% of labor strikes would be irrelevant.

So what I am hearing from you is that businesses should cater to the Union's every whim? Notice that I am not saying that the Unions are the only one at fault if there is a strike here. Both sides have to be reasonable and negotiate in good faith with eachother.

A union in no way should "give on their positions" on things that they should have anyway.

And what if a company cannot afford what the Union wants? Now what?

Precisely. Don't think about what Chomsky actually met. Just trust Paul Bagdanor.

Or better yet, read the goddamn thing.

And what if a company cannot afford what the Union wants? Now what?

sure, because unions are always willing to risk the job of employees on demands they know can't possibly be met :rolleyes:

sure, because unions are always willing to risk the job of employees on demands they know can't possibly be met :rolleyes:

Not always, but sometimes, yes. The union leadership doesn't necessarily have a realistic image of what the company can afford.

Comparatively few, and comparatively weak. And our anti-union legislation is very much an exception.

Might have something to do with the fact that industrial labor has never been as large a portion of the work force in the US as it has been abroad, especially in Europe. In fact, whereas most in Europe had industrial laborers well exceeded 50% as a portion of their population early in the last century.

On the other hand, the US labor force has never had a majority industrial labor, as this graph indicates (http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1001/percentageofuslaborforcao2.jpg), let alone a plurality. Unions, as well as the left in general attract primarily industrial laborers, thus evidencing the weakness of unions and the left in the US.

It's simple demographics, and the historical factors that went into the construction of the United States.

Or better yet, read the goddamn thing.

isn't Paul Bogdanor the same guy who has the grudge against Palestinians?

wow I wonder what I could do with this new found power, maybe I could avoid making any real arguments at all!

1. Many corporations are evil, and seek profit at the expense of the employees

2. This does not make capitalism evil.

3. Many unions have ceased to work for the worker,and instead have become a major impediment to good. For example, the National Education Association has lobbied for laws that make it nearly impossible to fire a teacher, even if the teacher is a child molester. This is not good for schools, the students, or the people.

4. My father is a member if the IBEW only because he can't get a job otherwise. How did it go from "union member=no hire" to "no union=no hire"? that can't be right, either.

5. Did you notice that most people who have jobs work for corporations? Crush the corporations, and they won't be able to hire anyone.

6. Class warfare ideas are mostly a load of hooey. You have opportunity to succeed.

7.Get some ambition, ya lazy bum! If you can't find the job you want, or aren't getting paid what you think you deserve, look for another job! If you're sinking in debt, sell that &$%# brand-new car and monster house and learn to live on less than you make. It's not your boss' fault you feel that you need to keep up with the Joneses.

8. These are just some random thoughts. None are 100% applicable to every situation, so don't get pissed if you disagree. Just quit expecting the government to do everything for you. I was injured on the job last July. I still hurt. Workers Comp screwed me. The system failed. I understand very well that all is not perfect. the workers comp system is very much like socialized medicine, and I know now that I DEFINITELY don't want any of that bullshit forced on me. At least I can go to my physician under my own insurance and get quality medical care.

9. sorry about the rambling thoughts. It's saturday, and I can take the full dose of medication and not worry about impaired driving ability, etc.

Or better yet, read the goddamn thing.
Two hundred out of context, cut-up quotes? Not much fun, or constructive debate, there.

I read the first couple of pages. It seems to be a collection of quotes where Chomsky, as he often does, uses the standards that the US or Western powers hold their enemy of the time (the USSR, Latin-American terrorism, etc.) up to, arguing that if we criticise these states for the terrible things they do, we should also hold our own states up to the same standards.

And the ‘truths’ are simply the author saying ‘look at at all the terrible things the Soviets did’, as if Chomsky is somehow defending the Soviets.

The union problems in this country are entirely self-inflicted. In the past, many of the most important unions existed for the main purpose of making money for the mafia families and now their main purpose is electing politicians, mostly democrats to public office.

If you have ever seen The Wire, I thought they did an excellent storyline on this. This corrupt union leader was getting paid by organized crime groups and basically blamed Bobby Kennedy, Nixon and Reagen who widely exposed the union corruption for the weakening of the unions instead of recognizing that it was people like him who were responsible and the union is eventually shut down because of him. He was paying politicians and basically tried to justify what he was doing by saying it was for the greater good of the union.

The only time that the unions were representing the people were when it was blue-collar workers who held the leadership and weren't paid. Now it's ACLU agitators who get into the unions to oppose capitalism. They love strikes.

Might have something to do with the fact that industrial labor has never been as large a portion of the work force in the US as it has been abroad, especially in Europe.

Does this hold internationally?

What about, say, France (with low levels of union membership) and Sweden (with rather high levels)?

Does this hold internationally?
Not really, no.
What about, say, France (with low levels of union membership) and Sweden (with rather high levels)?
France has very strong unions, and they like to get onto the streets. Sweden's very rich, so it can afford to pay its workers quite a bit without too much union involvement.

Does this hold internationally?

No longer does it hold internationally, but the legacy of these trends remain.

What about, say, France (with low levels of union membership) and Sweden (with rather high levels)?

Regardless of the fact that the French conceptualization of Union "membership" is quite a unique one, in comparison to the rest of the world, French unions are also extremely powerful. Something we can see from the potency of the threats of strikes, both specific and general, and the influence that they have over governing policy.

Sweden has the unique situation of having a substantial proportion of their non-industrial population being unionized, including many of the professional fields. Not only that, but union membership in Sweden (as well as Denmark) includes unemployed individuals, as unions are largely responsible for the management of the unemployment benefit system.

Something we can see from the potency of the threats of strikes, both specific and general, and the influence that they have over governing policy.

And that has what, exactly, to do with the share of industrial labor in the country's workforce?

Sweden has the unique situation of having a substantial proportion of their non-industrial population being unionized, including many of the professional fields.

Which shows quite clearly that union membership and industrial labor have no necessary connection at all. It suggests that a country can have a modern post-industrial economy while retaining a high level of union membership, with the right policies... precisely what the US has not done.

Edit: The difference in government policy may be attributable to demographics; certainly that has a good deal to do with the broad differences in left/right affiliation and policy. But from the perspective of asking which government policies we should support or oppose, that's irrelevant.

Not always, but sometimes, yes. The union leadership doesn't necessarily have a realistic image of what the company can afford.

Indeed. I have heard that a company's union would not budge on something and the company wound up closing because of it.

The reason Unions struggle in America is that they got themselves mixed up in really dirty business. Just read up on the Teamsters' ties to organized crime. The Unions are also in trouble as they have managed to destroy the industries who's workers they represent. See United Steel Workers and United Auto Workers.

The reason Unions struggle in America is that they got themselves mixed up in really dirty business. Just read up on the Teamsters' ties to organized crime. There's a certain degree of truth to this, but unions never made up a majority of the workforce here, unlike, say, Britain.

Still no replies to the fact of the open criminality of the Reagan administration in industrial relations as cited in the video?

Still no replies to the fact of the open criminality of the Reagan administration in industrial relations as cited in the video?

well yes its horrible and the discussion seems to have gone towards why the unions don't work like they should

its not the first crime of the Reagen administration and probably not the worst

its not the first crime of the Reagen administration and probably not the worst

Sadly enough.

Sadly enough.

You can always count on ol' Reagen having a few skeletons in the closet.

http://www.timvick.com/wp-includes/images/closet.jpg

You can always count on ol' Reagen having a few skeletons in the closet.

I've found that I can rarely bear talking about him. There are no words strong enough.

its just about how the US is the only industrialized country to deny the human right to unionize and all the laws being broken by companies just firing left right and center

I don't know about parts 2 and 3 Noam Chomsky is a walking sleeping pill

The US denies unions? Gee, somebody better tell the post office that, because I could have sworn that I belong to the NRLCA (National Rural Letter Carriers' Association).

A little off topic, but my friend's chihuahua once bit Noam Chomsky!

Well it's probably best that workers leave the US, because it's not a country but instead a giant corporation.

A little off topic, but my friend's chihuahua once bit Noam Chomsky!

was alcohol involved? (http://www.subreality.com/mespt/gallery/ch-chomsky.jpg)

The US denies unions? Gee, somebody better tell the post office that, because I could have sworn that I belong to the NRLCA (National Rural Letter Carriers' Association).

silly panda the human right to unionize covers more than actually saying you have a union and such

I'm sure I could dig up the declaration if its gets you off

Well it's probably best that workers leave the US, because it's not a country but instead a giant corporation.

I'd like to see some delicious irony and have redneck vigilantes fleeing to Mexico

I own a number of Chomsky books but can never bring myself to read very far into them. Something about the way he drones out rhetoric puts me into a coma.

Well it's probably best that workers leave the US, because it's not a country but instead a giant corporation.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3251/owllol1fg.jpg

was alcohol involved? (http://www.subreality.com/mespt/gallery/ch-chomsky.jpg)



silly panda the human right to unionize covers more than actually saying you have a union and such

I'm sure I could dig up the declaration if its gets you off



I'd like to see some delicious irony and have redneck vigilantes fleeing to Mexico

The NRLCA is a pretty decent union. Even though I'm not a career employee yet at the Post Office, I'm still eligible for health benefits due to the union's negotiations of the newest contract. I also received a raise when the new contract was agreed on (I started out at $16.45/hr, and after the contract I started making $17.51/hr).