NationStates Jolt Archive

For you libertarians (and others). What is your opinion on so-called "right-to-work" laws that prevent business and labor organizations from freely entering into agreements with each other? Would you support the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?

edit - Sorry about the US-centrism

Also, if you want to repeal Norris-LaGuardia, then presumably you would want to repeal National Labor Relations Act too I guess.

Direct ownership and control of the enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), where "business" and "labor" become exactly the same people in the fullest possible sense, would make the whole union issue entirely moot.Isn't the only way to achieve this through a labor movement of some sort?

Direct ownership and control of the enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management), where "business" and "labor" become exactly the same people in the fullest possible sense, would make the whole union issue entirely moot.

Which is why what currently passes for a "labor movement" in the United States abandoned the actual cause of labor a long time ago. A new bureaucracy and new set of bosses had nothing to gain and too much to lose.

There's really only one union left (http://www.iww.org/), in any meaningful sense, and while it appears to remember the cause, it could be bigger.

Repeal Taft-Hartley? Sure, and repeal the rest of the oligarchic State while you're at it.

I'd call the WGA a real union. They just got off a big strike.

Isn't the only way to achieve this through a labor movement of some sort?

To the extent that individual and group entrepeneurs start businesses and enter industries, organizing their enterprises in a social fashion, constitutes a "labor movement."

I'm not opposed to the idea of labor unions or other efforts to secure the rights and freedoms of labor within the context of the general non- (and often explicitly anti-) social/labor economic atmosphere. For all its flaws, it is undeniable that the labor movement has achieved great things.

But many have come to the conclusion that the labor movement as it presently exists has simply fallen into a pit wherein a new class of labor bureaucrat exists only to defend his political and economic position against competition, often in direct cooperation with the boss and the bosses' government.

Working within the system is necessary and helpful, no doubt. But the labor movement needs to start putting far more emphasis on "building the new society within the shell of the old" again.

Don't just point out problems; build and prove solutions and alternatives also. The movement accomplished what it did early on by doing exactly that.

I'd call the WGA a real union. They just got off a big strike.

Whilst I'd hesitate to talk about "real" and "non-real" unions, I doubt the WGA would qualify as "real" if anyone is going to make such a distinction.

I'd call the WGA a real union. They just got off a big strike.

Hollywood writers still enjoy having jobs that are of crucial importance to their industry. Hollywood doesn't work without them, so the writers strike was able to be rather effective in achieving writer's demands.

But the economy as a whole has shifted from an industrial base to a service and information base. Factory and other industrial workers staying on the line just isn't that important anymore; their jobs are flying overseas anyway, so who cares if a few more form a picket line.

That, combined with the fact that the large industrial unions have become large bureaucratic cesspools not necessarily pursuing the interests of labor to the fullest extent themselves (the events causing this beginning at least during World War II, if not earlier), means that the bar establishing what passes as a union nowadays has lowered somewhat.

Well, essentially unions are supplier cartels. You can like that or not, but that's their function. And as such, they are likely to produce dead weight losses from an efficiency point of view.

But if you keep them small (I dislike the idea of unions that incorporate workers from more than one business), then you can probably keep the negatives small. And besides, a union genuinely interested in the future of the company (and hence the jobs of its members) can actually improve business performance, plus make the workers happier.

There's really only one union left (http://www.iww.org/), in any meaningful sense,

*Applause*

The modern US labour movement, if it can be called that, is nothing more than damaging to labour interests. The major US unions really just amount to corporations in their own right, selling labour as their product while the big bosses and professional union lawyers, negotiators, etc. at the top reap all the benefits. That unions today have a reputation for corruption and criminality says more about the corporate system they're part of than it does about labour movements - monkey see, monkey do.

The IWW, on the other hand, hasn't joined the majority of the labour movement in selling its members out. Unfortunately, it gets lumped in with every other union in the dim view the general public holds of labour organizations, and it primarily operates in a society where "rocking the boat" is heavily discouraged, so it faces a doubly-steep uphill battle.

I'm somewhat Libertarian, I think businesses and Labor Unions should be free to enter into agreements... On the flip side, I also think workers should not be "forced" to join a Labor union in order to secure employment... That being said, I do not think the government should force Corporations to unionize, nor should the government bar corporations from entering into agreement with unions...

The IWW, on the other hand, hasn't joined the majority of the labour movement in selling its members out.
Of course it is necessarily predisposed towards it. Since it is not just a one-company union, it must see itself as some sort of wider social force rather than just a tool to make the conditions of a certain job better. Apart from those delusions of grandeur, it also has the more mundane problem of facing trade-offs when asking for improvements to conditions across the board: some companies won't be able to provide them and get destroyed, which makes union members lose their jobs. But only go for a smallest common denominator, and other members don't do as well as they could have.

If you take a step back, it's really just the attempt to define manufacturing workers as something approaching a "class" in the old sense. You're a manufacturing worker and I am too, therefore we must have the same interests and be represented by the same union. Nevermind that you work for GM and are about to lose your job because your employer is going bankrupt and I'm working for a solar panel maker and in line for an employee share package as a thank-you for good work.

As a matter of raising wages, unions are pointless.

As a matter of habitual abuse against non-members, they are despicable.

As a matter of empowering workers, they are necessary.

Repeal them both. Let workers and Companys do what they want, stopping someone from WILLINGLY signing a contract to not enter a labor union is fine with me as long as they don't put a gun to their head and force them to sign:p

For you libertarians (and others). What is your opinion on so-called "right-to-work" laws that prevent business and labor organizations from freely entering into agreements with each other? Would you support the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?

edit - Sorry about the US-centrism

Right-to-work laws that prevent unions and businesses from freely agreeing to exclusive go too far. The only time we need right-to-work laws is when jurisdictions legislate all union shops as closed shops (British Columbia does this). I don't mind closed shops if the employer agrees to it, but I can't imagine why any employer ever would except in cases of severe labour shortage.

The idea of 'reconciliation' of the interests of capital and labor, that is class collaboration, lies at the heart of bourgeois ideology, but in itself the idea is a myth, a triviality. In reality the bourgeois know that the interests of the workers and capitalists will always be against each other, and that capitalists must repress the workers and force them into wage-slavery in order to control them. Any mirage of such a 'reconciliation' is just that, a mirage, behind it lies brutal exploitation.

Class collaboration is itself a fascist idea, and represents bourgeois rule at it's most vulnerable, when the capitalists must utilize the whole repressive apparatus of the state in order to repress worker movements. Germany of course and most of Europe got to this stage after WWI, and thus the rise of fascism was used by the bourgeois to crush worker opposition. The US almost got to this stage, and indeed hundreds of workers were murdered in the earliest years of the 19th century, but indeed by using welfare capitalism 'New Deal' was able to repress the workers.

Capitalism is just fascism at different phases of class struggle, these days 'civil rights', 'the rule of law', 'liberty' and other bourgeois concepts suffice (to a certain extent) is 'justifying' the bourgeois state. But it's important that these concepts are not real, and if pushed the bourgeois state will dispense with them immediately, if not against the workers then against rival bourgeois groups and individuals, being that capitalism is sectarian in the extreme (nationalism, religion etc).

Trade unions used to be an instrument of class struggle, but largely today they exist as mickey mouse arms of the bourgeois state, and are used to 'legitimize' class oppression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_collaboration

I'm libertarian and a member of a small union, but economically middle of the road. (Compared to the US' LP, I'm practically a lefty...)

Well, essentially unions are supplier cartels. You can like that or not, but that's their function. And as such, they are likely to produce dead weight losses from an efficiency point of view.

But if you keep them small (I dislike the idea of unions that incorporate workers from more than one business), then you can probably keep the negatives small. And besides, a union genuinely interested in the future of the company (and hence the jobs of its members) can actually improve business performance, plus make the workers happier.

I'm agreed on small is better. However, I also want to see smaller business enterprises. And and I don't like corporations - too much concentrated power. Unions provide a needed balance.

I don't mind closed shops if the employer agrees to it, but I can't imagine why any employer ever would except in cases of severe labour shortage.I think what happens is that at some point in time, the workers get uppity, form a union, and after they've convinced a heck of a lot of people to join, they go the the employer and say "Close shop or 90% of your workforce walks".

Andaras, first of all, here's what most people see when somebody types a commie post:
bourgeois ideology... fascist... bourgeois rule... Capitalism is just fascism... 'civil rights', 'the rule of law', 'liberty' and other bourgeois concepts suffice... bourgeois state... bourgeois state... bourgeois groups and individuals... mickey mouse arms of the bourgeois state... oppression...

Still, I may as well address a few points.

The idea of 'reconciliation' of the interests of capital and labor, that is class collaboration, lies at the heart of bourgeois ideology, but in itself the idea is a myth, a triviality.False on both counts. The myth is that there exists a "bourgeois ideology". There may be a so-called "bourgeois" class, and they may subscribe various ideologies, and some of those ideologies may function in some ways as to justify actions that may conflict with your ideology, but none of these ideologies (to which the upper class subscribe) has as its goal the continued dominance of one class of people over another. Class collaboration is not a myth. In fact, it's one of the defining elements of Western democracy. It may be unfortunate that it generally does not result in any kind of rectification of class divides, but it exists nonetheless.

In reality the bourgeois know that the interests of the workers and capitalists will always be against each other, and that capitalists must repress the workers and force them into wage-slavery in order to control them.False. In reality, the people who you label as "bourgeois" do not even begin to realise this. Heck, I don't even buy it when stated in such absolute terms.

Any mirage of such a 'reconciliation' is just that, a mirage, behind it lies brutal exploitation.The vast majority of workers in Western countries aren't being brutalized.

Class collaboration is itself a fascist idea, and represents bourgeois rule at it's most vulnerable, when the capitalists must utilize the whole repressive apparatus of the state in order to repress worker movements.False on the second count. If there is such a thing as "bourgeois rule", then class collaboration is bourgeois rule at its strongest, when the bourgeois are sitting pretty and have no need to use truly repressive apparatuses (apparati?). Western democracies generally don't even approach using a mere fraction of their repressive capability, and the assertion otherwise strikes me as ludicrous. We're just getting the brief glimpse of the true repressive potential of a Western technological society under the Bush administration.

Germany of course and most of Europe got to this stage after WWI, and thus the rise of fascism was used by the bourgeois to crush worker opposition. The US almost got to this stage, and indeed hundreds of workers were murdered in the earliest years of the 19th century, but indeed by using welfare capitalism 'New Deal' was able to repress the workers.A true Red might think it the appeasement of throwing a dog a bone, but in no way can the New Deal be described as repression. Which piece of New Deal legislation repressed people? How were the people repressed by it?
Capitalism is just fascism at different phases of class struggle, these days 'civil rights', 'the rule of law', 'liberty' and other bourgeois concepts suffice (to a certain extent) is 'justifying' the bourgeois state. But it's important that these concepts are not real...Describing something as "bourgeois" doesn't make it somehow false. Civil Rights, rule of law, and liberty are all concretely definable terms, whether you're in favor of them or opposed to them.

Yes, and companies should also be able to disband unions and fire agitating workers. The right to form a union or a closed shops also means that companies have the right to take action to prevent unionization within the company.

Yes, and companies should also be able to disband unions and fire agitating workers. The right to form a union or a closed shops also means that companies have the right to take action to prevent unionization within the company.
If companies should be able to disband unions, then should unions be able to disband companies too? I mean, when it comes down to it we're just talking about two groups of people doing business with each other can calling one a "union" and one a "company".

Repeal them both. Let workers and Companys do what they want, stopping someone from WILLINGLY signing a contract to not enter a labor union is fine with me as long as they don't put a gun to their head and force them to sign:p

This is pretty much my stance.

If companies should be able to disband unions, then should unions be able to disband companies too? I mean, when it comes down to it we're just talking about two groups of people doing business with each other can calling one a "union" and one a "company".

If the workers can find a way to gain control of the company and impose self-management, then absolutely. However, if the company is owned by someone else or a group of investors unrelated to the workers, the situation is entirely different. They can't do much other than take their labor and skills elsewhere.

If companies should be able to disband unions, then should unions be able to disband companies too? I mean, when it comes down to it we're just talking about two groups of people doing business with each other can calling one a "union" and one a "company".

I like this idea - a lot. :)

If the workers can find a way to gain control of the company and impose self-management, then absolutely. However, if the company is owned by someone else or a group of investors unrelated to the workers, the situation is entirely different. They can't do much other than take their labor and skills elsewhere.

So why should one group have the power to disband the other, but the power not go the other way?

Of course it is necessarily predisposed towards it. Since it is not just a one-company union, it must see itself as some sort of wider social force rather than just a tool to make the conditions of a certain job better. Apart from those delusions of grandeur, it also has the more mundane problem of facing trade-offs when asking for improvements to conditions across the board: some companies won't be able to provide them and get destroyed, which makes union members lose their jobs. But only go for a smallest common denominator, and other members don't do as well as they could have.

If you take a step back, it's really just the attempt to define manufacturing workers as something approaching a "class" in the old sense. You're a manufacturing worker and I am too, therefore we must have the same interests and be represented by the same union. Nevermind that you work for GM and are about to lose your job because your employer is going bankrupt and I'm working for a solar panel maker and in line for an employee share package as a thank-you for good work.

The IWW differs from other umbrella unions (which I don't like either) in that it operates on a decentralized model. Individual union chapters have a larger degree of autonomy than they do in, say, the AFL, so the organization's constituent parts, and the organization as a whole, are better equipped to meet the unique needs of various members. It's generally a bottom-up union, where the organization as a whole is mobilised at the request of the members, and the goals are set by the members directly involved in the dispute themselves. So while the IWW does view workers as a class, it is deliberately set up in a manner that it allows recognition of the unique conditions of auto manufactuers versus solar panel makers.

The IWW does view itself as a wider social movement also, though I'm not sure what you mean by the assertion that having a long-term goal makes it predisposed toward selling its members out. It could just be because I'm tired, but if you wouldn't mind elaborating, I might be able to respond to the point better.

Tongrass, Vetalia, Daistallia, I'm finding your discussion very interesting. I just wanted to pass on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

The issue of Argentina's "recovered factories" are very topical.

Tongrass, Vetalia, Daistallia, I'm finding your discussion very interesting. I just wanted to pass on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management

The issue of Argentina's "recovered factories" are very topical.

Heh. Even just a few years ago, I'd have railed against that. Mutualism is a school of thought I'd dismissed until fairly recently...

The right to form a union or a closed shops also means that companies have the right to take action to prevent unionization within the company.

Only if we defend union rights on the basis of a capitalist libertarian defense of "free association."

Typically, however, unions are defended as a means to redress the imbalances between employee and employer.

For you libertarians (and others). What is your opinion on so-called "right-to-work" laws that prevent business and labor organizations from freely entering into agreements with each other? Would you support the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?

edit - Sorry about the US-centrism

I support the repeal of Taft-Hartley and the right to work along with laws like Norris-LaGuardia. If anything, unions should serve as a sort of voluntary certification association like AAA.

The IWW does view itself as a wider social movement also, though I'm not sure what you mean by the assertion that having a long-term goal makes it predisposed toward selling its members out. It could just be because I'm tired, but if you wouldn't mind elaborating, I might be able to respond to the point better.
Because these long-term goals are utopian fantasies, while people's lives and jobs are real. The problem is when a union ceases to be a union and becomes something else entirely. It's meant to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers, not to bring down capitalism and turn the world into a mutualist paradise. If you want that, start a political party and do it in a civilised manner, not by painting black cats on other people's stuff.

Because these long-term goals are utopian fantasies, while people's lives and jobs are real. The problem is when a union ceases to be a union and becomes something else entirely. It's meant to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers, not to bring down capitalism and turn the world into a mutualist paradise. If you want that, start a political party and do it in a civilised manner, not by painting black cats on other people's stuff.

Well said. While ideology has it's place on both sides, this is not Dr. Pangloss' garden. Pragmatism is that which wisely allows us to all work together.

Here's what my union's website has to say about our goals:

We are a legally registered Japanese labour union open to all nationalities from all walks of life. Formed in 1991, we have built a strong reputation by protecting workers' rights and improving working conditions. We are not a cheap legal service. The General Union is a group of individuals supporting each other for the benefit of all.

The General Union is part of a national private sector trade union known as the National Union of General Workers (Zenkoku-Ippan). We belong to a confederation known as Zenrokyo (National Trade Union Council).
http://www.generalunion.org/about

In Japan, there are three main trade union federations:

1. Zenrokyo is an independent federation with no links to the Communist Party or any employers. It is made up largely of independent-minded unions and tends to take a more active approach to labour issues than the other two. It is the only one which actively attempts to organise foreign workers.

2. Rengo is largely composed of public sector unions and unions in the private sector, many of whom have a close relationship with company management and very often are 'yellow unions', or simply company-controlled.

3. Zenroren is affiliated to the Japan Communist Party (JCP)

There are three main unions for teachers, each affiliated to one of the three federations. The biggest is Nikkyoso. Nikkyoso and Zenkyo basically only recruit full-time permanent teachers, whereas Kyoiku Godo recruits any worker in the education industry.

The General Union exists to serve the needs of workers who were traditionally unorganised; hence its active recruitment of foreign workers. The GU is an area union, not based on any one employer or industry. Individuals may join, and if there are several members in one company or workplace, they can then form a branch of the General Union.
National Trade Union Council
ZENROKYO is a national confederation of private and public sector trade unions headquartered in Tokyo, and also includes regional councils, e.g. Osaka Zenrokyo. The National Executive is made up of regional representatives. Osaka Zenrokyo's executive is made up of representatives of member unions. Zenrokyo is the smallest of the three national trade union confederations. It is the only union federation that actively recruits and supports foreign workers and their disputes. ZENROKYO is made up of independent unions which are not controlled by company management.

National Union of General Workers - Zenrokyo
NUGW is a national union of mainly private sector general unions like the General Union. The General Union has one executive member on the NUGW national executive committee. Some of the affiliated unions are based in companies, some on regions, and some, like the General Union, based predominantly in certain industries. Through NUGW, we are connected with other language workers in Tokyo, Nagoya, Sendai, Fukuoka, Kumamoto, and other parts of Japan.
http://www.generalunion.org/affiliation

Nothing about overthrowing the system there. ;)

Because these long-term goals are utopian fantasies, while people's lives and jobs are real. The problem is when a union ceases to be a union and becomes something else entirely. It's meant to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers, not to bring down capitalism and turn the world into a mutualist paradise.Why can't a union do both?

Why can't a union do both?
Because a mutualist paradise wouldn't improve anyone's pay or conditions one bit. ;)

But besides that, the best way to improve pay and conditions consistently is to work together with management for the good of the company and simply make sure that the profit distribution takes account of the workforce. Overthrowing the system on the other hand is necessarily going against the management. You can't consistently advocate shareholders to lose what they own and at the same time cooperate with them, because at some point they won't want to anymore.

Because a mutualist paradise wouldn't improve anyone's pay or conditions one bit. ;)You're silly. :)

But besides that, the best way to improve pay and conditions consistently is to work together with management for the good of the company and simply make sure that the profit distribution takes account of the workforce. Overthrowing the system on the other hand is necessarily going against the management. You can't consistently advocate shareholders to lose what they own and at the same time cooperate with them, because at some point they won't want to anymore.I disagree; as the slogan goes, "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common."
Nonetheless, the IWW's ideology isn't so much the point - there isn't an ideology check for new members. I would say that it's useful merely to provide a background for where the IWW's tactics and it's organizing methods come from - specifically the ones that make the IWW different from other unions.

I would classify myself as a libertarian (note the small "l"), even though I'm registered as a Democrat and was registered as a Republican until early 2007. I'm not extreme in that belief, though. I understand that keeping government interference in private affairs should be kept to a minimum. However, I also understand that said minimum is not zero. Some regulation is necessary for protection from inequalities inherent in non-model systems.

In a perfect world, yes, the interests of labor unions would directly balance the interests of business and both sides would play fair with each other. In reality Taft-Hartley makes a fair referee IMHO.

I disagree; as the slogan goes, "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common."
It seemed to me that this slogan was untrue, so I started a new thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550896) about it.

In a perfect world, yes, the interests of labor unions would directly balance the interests of business and both sides would play fair with each other. In reality Taft-Hartley makes a fair referee IMHO.

You believe unions are too strong? You do realize that the prvate sector of the US has less than 10 percent of its workers unionized.

I am seriously laughing at the complete lack of knowledge people have in this thread regarding industrial history in America. From day one organized labor has been beaten into submission in America, and the country has been run for big business by big business.

You believe unions are too strong? You do realize that the prvate sector of the US has less than 10 percent of its workers unionized.

The workforce in my industry here in Japan would be happy to have that high a percentage... What a wierd work force - white-collar migrant workers...

I am seriously laughing at the complete lack of knowledge people have in this thread regarding industrial history in America. From day one organized labor has been beaten into submission in America, and the country has been run for big business by big business.

Indeed so.

Because these long-term goals are utopian fantasies, while people's lives and jobs are real.

That is certainly the AFL's stance, and I will admit that it was arguably the most successful labour movement in the United States in terms of material effect. But that commitment to mediocrity is what the American wage-earner has to thank for their sorry state today.

The problem is when a union ceases to be a union and becomes something else entirely. It's meant to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers, not to bring down capitalism and turn the world into a mutualist paradise. If you want that, start a political party and do it in a civilised manner, not by painting black cats on other people's stuff.

When did the IWW ever cease to be a union? (Aside from when it became a legal defence organization for its members during the government crackdown of leftist groups in the 'teens and twenties) Organized labour plays the most minor of parts in the modern US economy, but the IWW is still actively and effectively pursuing the interests of its members.

I don't waste my time with "civilised" political parties. The US Democrats may make pretty speeches to AFL-CIO members, but their commitment to helping workers - indeed, the state's commitment to workers - is lukewarm at best. The best any worker can expect from party politics are half-measures that affect a backhanded reinforcement of such social-economic elements which exploit them in the first place. The worst... well, 20th century history answers that. I prefer to concentrate my time and energy on improving the conditions of my neighbours and fellow workers.

You believe unions are too strong? You do realize that the prvate sector of the US has less than 10 percent of its workers unionized.

I didn't say the first, because I don't believe that they are too strong on the whole. (When the weight of a national union comes bearing down on a small union shop come negotiating time, though, I feel for the company.) I'm also aware that the percentage of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements is small. Indeed, I am one of that small number -- I'm a Teamster.

But that commitment to mediocrity is what the American wage-earner has to thank for their sorry state today.
I'd say the American wage-earner probably has it better now than ever before. Perhaps even better is that I'm not even sure what is meant by "wage-earner" anymore, because that shows a lot of flexibility, freedom and that people aren't defined by their "class" in a marxist sense.

Organized labour plays the most minor of parts in the modern US economy, but the IWW is still actively and effectively pursuing the interests of its members.
But not their real-life interests. The IWW says that it's in their members' interest to get all anarcho-syndicalist on everyone's asses, hell, maybe the members even believe it themselves - but that's a long way away from something that actually pays the mortgage.

I don't waste my time with "civilised" political parties.
And perhaps that's why they don't waste their time with the IWW. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that the sort of utopianism organisations like the IWW stand for really has a lot of supporters in the US.

I'd much prefer if someone dusts off the good parts of the old German "Rheinland" model of capitalism. In that a few full-vote seats on corporate boards were reserved for representatives of the workforce, enough to make sure that the interests of employees weren't overlooked when big decisions were made. It worked well and served to build the sort of consensus that can do a lot of good, especially now that corporations are getting more culturally diverse and spread across the globe.

That's the sort of thing you can realistically push for and that you can expect to provide real results for the people on the production line. What it isn't going to do is bring down capitalism, but as the average American wage-earner would tell you, that's hardly a bad thing.

And perhaps that's why they don't waste their time with the IWW.Perhaps, but then again, the IWW is specifically apolitical. It would violate the IWW Constitution for it to, say, donate money to a political campaign.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that the sort of utopianism organisations like the IWW stand for really has a lot of supporters in the US.Perhaps not. With that said, at its peak, the IWW only had about 100,000 members, but its influence greatly exceeded those appallingly small numbers.

I'd say the American wage-earner probably has it better now than ever before. Perhaps even better is that I'm not even sure what is meant by "wage-earner" anymore, because that shows a lot of flexibility, freedom and that people aren't defined by their "class" in a marxist sense.

The American wage earners have it better in terms of workplace safety, limited work week, wages (but not necessarily real wages), etc., but their rights are still ignored, even by their supposed advocates. They do not control their labour, they enjoy only a fraction of the value their labour creates, they are regularly disposed of when business turns south due to poor management decisions, and their only choice is still to accept these conditions or starve. The AFL accepts these conditions, which is what I meant by "commitment to mediocrity".

But not their real-life interests. The IWW says that it's in their members' interest to get all anarcho-syndicalist on everyone's asses, hell, maybe the members even believe it themselves - but that's a long way away from something that actually pays the mortgage.

Better wages and job security are real-life interests. The difference between the IWW and others is that the IWW doesn't stop there. It treats the symptoms just as effectively (in some cases more effectively) than other unions, while working to cure the disease.

I don't mean to pick nits, but I also want to point out that although some IWW members are anarcho-syndicalist, the organization itself isn't, nor does it promote anarcho-syndicalism in particular. Like Jello has been thrusting at, it's a stretch to classify the IWW as a political organization in the traditional sense. It puts a much greater emphasis on worker interests than political ideology.

And perhaps that's why they don't waste their time with the IWW. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that the sort of utopianism organisations like the IWW stand for really has a lot of supporters in the US.

Is self-management and workplace democracy utopian? How do you account for successful worker-run, democratic workplaces such as those in Argentina? Conventional wisdom says it's unworkable, but current events have proven otherwise.

I'd much prefer if someone dusts off the good parts of the old German "Rheinland" model of capitalism. In that a few full-vote seats on corporate boards were reserved for representatives of the workforce, enough to make sure that the interests of employees weren't overlooked when big decisions were made. It worked well and served to build the sort of consensus that can do a lot of good, especially now that corporations are getting more culturally diverse and spread across the globe.

That's the sort of thing you can realistically push for and that you can expect to provide real results for the people on the production line.

There are very successful and nominally employee-friendly businesses that employ this model (or something similar to it). The best example I can think of is WestJet in Canada, which keeps an employee on its board of directors. Its employees are generally happier than the employees of competing airlines, though they are paid less, and WestJet hasn't posted a loss in any quarter since its inception until, I believe, pretty recently. It doesn't solve the chronic, structural problems inherent in the capitalist system, however. In my view, it's an improvement and a possible path toward a solution, but not a solution in itself.

What it isn't going to do is bring down capitalism, but as the average American wage-earner would tell you, that's hardly a bad thing.

Would the average American wage-earner tell me capitalism is not a bad thing because they have soberly and objectively reviewed the benefits and pitfalls of both the capitalist system and alternative systems? Or does cradle-to-grave social engineering and propaganda have something to do with it? I think the average American wage-earner would say capitalism is a good thing because they were taught in school "socialism = bad".

The American wage earners have it better in terms of workplace safety, limited work week, wages (but not necessarily real wages), etc., but their rights are still ignored, even by their supposed advocates.
That's because you stand pretty much alone in what you decree to be their rights.

As for real wages, comparing those over long periods is a tricky business at best because the basket of goods not only changes in its composition, but even the same goods become so much better that in terms of the value they can provide to the buyer they can't really be called the same.

They do not control their labour, they enjoy only a fraction of the value their labour creates...
Prove it. If I try to make shoes all by myself, I can perhaps make five pairs a day. If I work in a shoe factory I can make hundreds. The former is my labour, the latter is what the capitalist does with it.

I put it to you that the vast, vast majority of workers actually earn more than the value of their labour in a marxist sense.

...they are regularly disposed of when business turns south due to poor management decisions...
At the moment lots of people in the US have stopped discretionary spending where possible because they don't feel safe in their jobs or because they put themselves into too much debt. Those are poor management decisions on their part - and as a result they don't go and buy stuff. Businesses are hurting, they are being disposed of as a result of consumers having made poor decisions.

So if you advocate job security, would you also advocate sales security for businesses? Lock-in contracts, perhaps, that force consumers to keep buying a certain product and that can't be cancelled without good reason?

...and their only choice is still to accept these conditions or starve.
I don't really think that's the choice people face on a day to day basis in the richest country on earth. If we were talking third world you may have a point to make (though ultimately it's still silly to blame the employer for the lack of alternatives available to the employee), but fact of the matter is that unless you're a student, if the boss calls you into his office your thoughts don't go to how you're going to get dinner.

Better wages and job security are real-life interests. The difference between the IWW and others is that the IWW doesn't stop there. It treats the symptoms just as effectively (in some cases more effectively) than other unions, while working to cure the disease.
Except that it's a quack. It works on a faulty diagnosis, and as a result it's trying to treat a cold with chemo- and radiation therapy.

Fact is that if you lead existential attacks against the people who buy your labour, you end up with no one buying it. The destruction of the economy doesn't put food on anybody's table but those with the rhetorical skills to put themselves at the head of the movement.

Is self-management and workplace democracy utopian? How do you account for successful worker-run, democratic workplaces such as those in Argentina? Conventional wisdom says it's unworkable, but current events have proven otherwise.
Conventional wisdom doesn't say anything about it. But a few truths are nonetheless in order: these places can't expand, they can only keep themselves alive. They are feeding on the dead bodies of entrepreneurial successes, they require someone to create something they can take control of because they're unable to create anything for themselves. Despite the stories about management taking all the value, even though they don't have managers they don't actually pay more to any significant degree - in fact plenty of people who work in these collectives are barely staying afloat (if that) and just stick with it because they can't find anything better. And finally, if they were to grow to a size that would allow for some real economies of scale, you'd find that workplace democracy quickly ends up eating up more time and resources than are available, plus specialisation would create the sort of differences in value to the production chain that cause wage differences in capitalism.

You want to base an entire world on this? I know I certainly don't want any part of it. I put value creation before value redistribution.

Would the average American wage-earner tell me capitalism is not a bad thing because they have soberly and objectively reviewed the benefits and pitfalls of both the capitalist system and alternative systems?
Are you saying the average American wage-earner is stupid, or some sort of brainwashed drone? Don't get me wrong, you certainly wouldn't be the first who realised the need for some sort of vanguard revolutionary to show the sheep the path into the light, I just want to make sure.

For the normal person, capitalism has neither a floor nor a ceiling. You can go low or high, and in America at least people are aware that while not everyone is always dealt the same cards, everyone can play a good game if they try. Socialism has a floor, but it also has a ceiling and the more consistent a socialist system, the closer the two are together. People who can live with a bit of risk, self-reliance and responsibility won't want to be squeezed into a mold, and I think the average American wage-earner is just such a person.

Prove it. If I try to make shoes all by myself, I can perhaps make five pairs a day. If I work in a shoe factory I can make hundreds. The former is my labour, the latter is what the capitalist does with it.

But the capitalist hasn't done anything - you're the one who makes those hundreds of pairs of shoes, not your boss. A shoemaker's natural wage ought to be (sale price)-(material cost)-(cost of tools/machines), not (sale price)-(material cost)-(cost of tools/machines)-(profit).

I put it to you that the vast, vast majority of workers actually earn more than the value of their labour in a marxist sense.

This is probably true, since Marxism doesn't generally promote workers earning the full value of their labour, but rather free access to goods and services. At least, as far as I've read and heard (I imagine there could be some Marxists out there who think otherwise).

At the moment lots of people in the US have stopped discretionary spending where possible because they don't feel safe in their jobs or because they put themselves into too much debt. Those are poor management decisions on their part - and as a result they don't go and buy stuff. Businesses are hurting, they are being disposed of as a result of consumers having made poor decisions.

So if you advocate job security, would you also advocate sales security for businesses? Lock-in contracts, perhaps, that force consumers to keep buying a certain product and that can't be cancelled without good reason?

There's no need to distort my argument. No, I don't advocate something so ridiculous. The point is: the managers making poor decisions should be held responsible for poor management decisions, not the workers who are merely following orders.

I don't really think that's the choice people face on a day to day basis in the richest country on earth. If we were talking third world you may have a point to make (though ultimately it's still silly to blame the employer for the lack of alternatives available to the employee), but fact of the matter is that unless you're a student, if the boss calls you into his office your thoughts don't go to how you're going to get dinner.

The blame for lack of alternatives rests with the present economic system, in which the employer is a willing actor. The actors in that system have a vested interest in ensuring no viable alternatives become available to the employee, so they do (eg, Argentinian banks refusing to deal with worker-run factories out of anti-socialist sentiment).

I'll amend my earlier statement, though: Their only choice is to accept these conditions or go without the means to support themselves or their families.

Except that it's a quack.

In your opinion. I believe that a person owns their body, therefore they own what they make with their labour, therefore they have a right to full, not partial, compensation for the sale of the product of their labour.

Fact is that if you lead existential attacks against the people who buy your labour, you end up with no one buying it.

If the workers of a meat packing plant occupy their workplace, it doesn't stop people from wanting hamburgers. Employers are middle-men; workers' paycheques don't come from them, they come from the customers - after substantial deductions.

The destruction of the economy doesn't put food on anybody's table but those with the rhetorical skills to put themselves at the head of the movement.

But you're arguing the benefits of capitalism here; did capitalism not destroy the economy that came before it?

Conventional wisdom doesn't say anything about it. But a few truths are nonetheless in order: these places can't expand, they can only keep themselves alive. They are feeding on the dead bodies of entrepreneurial successes, they require someone to create something they can take control of because they're unable to create anything for themselves. Despite the stories about management taking all the value, even though they don't have managers they don't actually pay more to any significant degree - in fact plenty of people who work in these collectives are barely staying afloat (if that) and just stick with it because they can't find anything better. And finally, if they were to grow to a size that would allow for some real economies of scale, you'd find that workplace democracy quickly ends up eating up more time and resources than are available, plus specialisation would create the sort of differences in value to the production chain that cause wage differences in capitalism.

You want to base an entire world on this? I know I certainly don't want any part of it. I put value creation before value redistribution.

I'll try to address this point-by-point:
-Conventional wisdom says a lot about it. Capitalism says what is happening right now in Argentina is impossible.
-They are not entrepreneurial successes. Most of the occupied factories were financed by the Peron government, and all of them failed. The workers didn't seize these factories, they moved in after the owners abandoned them.
-Expansion and staying afloat: they would be doing much better if they were given a fair shot in the market, but for the time being, worker-controlled industries are blacklisted in the rest of the economy. Banks and other businesses won't touch them for ideological reasons. If (I'd like to say "when", but I'm a realist) they can stay afloat long enough to build linkages between them and establish alternative sources of credit, then they will have a chance to prove their profitability.
-Whether workplace democracy is inherently inefficient has yet to be proven on the ground. I would argue, however, that the fact that a democratized factory manages to maintain operation in the face of active opposition from the state, other businesses and banks, where the same factory operating within the capitalist model and enjoying state support failed, says a lot.
-Compensation differences aren't, on the whole, wrong. It depends on whether the difference is justifiable. Differences based upon the value of work (ie, a doctor vs. an actor) and effort (diligence vs. laziness) are justifiable.
-What redistribution?


Are you saying the average American wage-earner is stupid, or some sort of brainwashed drone? Don't get me wrong, you certainly wouldn't be the first who realised the need for some sort of vanguard revolutionary to show the sheep the path into the light, I just want to make sure.

The average American wage-earner is intentionally given a false impression of the proposed alternatives to capitalism by the media and the government. They are neither stupid nor brainwashed; the reliability of the information they receive through education, news and popular media is suspect. I would say that they don't realise they've been fed a load, or see that if they are going to make a fair examination of the alternatives, they need to actively look elsewhere. They trust that their education especially is unbiased, when in reality any critical examination will show that education is social engineering. The American wage-earner already has a vanguard telling them "This is good, that is bad, don't look into it", they do not need another.

But the capitalist hasn't done anything - you're the one who makes those hundreds of pairs of shoes, not your boss. A shoemaker's natural wage ought to be (sale price)-(material cost)-(cost of tools/machines), not (sale price)-(material cost)-(cost of tools/machines)-(profit).
Well, evidently he's done something, otherwise I'd still be making five pairs. Machines don't appear out of thin air, nor do companies, marketing strategies, logistics networks and so on and so forth. The capitalist allows me to put my labour to a far superior use than I could without him, and for that he's certainly entitled to his reward.

This is probably true, since Marxism doesn't generally promote workers earning the full value of their labour, but rather free access to goods and services. At least, as far as I've read and heard (I imagine there could be some Marxists out there who think otherwise).
Oh, there are plenty. I'm not talking about the eventual utopia, I'm talking about the concrete stages of history marxism predicts along the way. My labour in the shoe example is the value of five pairs of shoes - everything beyond that is not the value of my labour, but the value of some addition to it. But I suggest that most wage earners earn more than just the price of the five shoes, so they also get a cut of the addition that made their labour really worth something. Hence why people generally prefer to work with others in organised systems (which usually are due to someone creating them) to working alone, and why it does seem a tad ungrateful or at least ignorant to call paid work in capitalism "exploitation".

There's no need to distort my argument. No, I don't advocate something so ridiculous.
I was just pointing out the similarities between a boss employing someone and you choosing to "employ" someone for a haircut. In one case union-types generally advocate rigid systems with lots of "job security", but no one seriously advocates the same thing in other markets because there it'd just seem "ridiculous".

The point is: the managers making poor decisions should be held responsible for poor management decisions, not the workers who are merely following orders.
I certainly agree, and I really don't understand golden handshakes for people who fucked up. But that's not capitalism, it's the actions of the people on the board of directors and the larger shareholders. I'm annoyed with them, but I don't see the point of talking about "the system".

But still, once a bad decision has been made and a company is struggling, I don't see the point of letting the whole thing go bankrupt because firing workers who are essentially innocent would be "unfair". All you end up doing is killing everyone's jobs rather than just those of a few people.

The blame for lack of alternatives rests with the present economic system, in which the employer is a willing actor. The actors in that system have a vested interest in ensuring no viable alternatives become available to the employee, so they do (eg, Argentinian banks refusing to deal with worker-run factories out of anti-socialist sentiment).
Banks have no business in that area. They are after creating returns from their investments, and worker-run factories generally lack the skills needed to make a good case for why investing in them is a good idea. A factory without trained management, a proper accounting department, a marketing strategy or even such a thing as consistent planning (since it's democratic you can't be sure that things don't change at the next meeting if someone makes a good speech) isn't a particularly safe investment. Conspiracy theories are great and all, but capitalism means first and foremost that the bank's responsibility lies in making money - it stands to reason that if you want to find out why a bank isn't lending you cash, that's the first place to look.

Not to mention that the banks and the employer are two different and seperate entities, and it's no less silly to blame the employer for the bank's actions. That's the pitfall of looking at everything through a marxist framework.

I'll amend my earlier statement, though: Their only choice is to accept these conditions or go without the means to support themselves or their families.
Again, I doubt that's the case for most Americans. There are plenty of poor Americans (who, compared to someone in the third world, had every chance to get themselves a decent skill set), but the reason they can't find other employment is that they don't have anything useful to offer. That fact won't change in any other system, but socialism would have to supply these people with goods and services even though nothing is contributed in return. A system that wastes resources like that is bound to collapse sooner or later.

In your opinion. I believe that a person owns their body, therefore they own what they make with their labour, therefore they have a right to full, not partial, compensation for the sale of the product of their labour.
The problem being your jump from "labour" to "product". That's where the capitalist contributes, and not insignificantly.

If the workers of a meat packing plant occupy their workplace, it doesn't stop people from wanting hamburgers. Employers are middle-men; workers' paycheques don't come from them, they come from the customers - after substantial deductions.
Great, so the meat packing plant is already standing there. Let's assume the workers are all brilliant people who could really have been managers if only they hadn't been so oppressed, the plant remains producing as before and the selling of the hamburgers continues (just because people want hamburgers doesn't mean that they want yours, but nevermind...).

What does the next generation of people do? Populations tend to grow, and you've just locked the productive capacity (and therefore the number of jobs) in place.

But you're arguing the benefits of capitalism here; did capitalism not destroy the economy that came before it?
No. Capitalism (that is the creation and trading of personal property) was always there. Occasionally people choose to get together and form communities that own property jointly, but the nature of property or trade doesn't change, only the entities do. And occasionally people with clubs, swords or guns forced others to hand over their property, but that's a crime, not an economic system.

Capitalism says what is happening right now in Argentina is impossible.
I happen to be a 5th year student of business management and economics, so I think I have a rough idea of what capitalism "says". Could you be a little more specific?

They are not entrepreneurial successes. Most of the occupied factories were financed by the Peron government, and all of them failed. The workers didn't seize these factories, they moved in after the owners abandoned them.
Does it matter? First there was no factory, then there was one. Whether more recent bosses destroyed them, or finance for them came from a government rather than a private bank or the timing of the takeover, it all seems a little bit irrelevant. What is clear that the takeover created no new productive capacity, it merely slightly changed the use of what already existed.

Expansion and staying afloat: they would be doing much better if they were given a fair shot in the market, but for the time being, worker-controlled industries are blacklisted in the rest of the economy. Banks and other businesses won't touch them for ideological reasons. If (I'd like to say "when", but I'm a realist) they can stay afloat long enough to build linkages between them and establish alternative sources of credit, then they will have a chance to prove their profitability.
I covered that. Capitalists actually do stuff to make sure a business stays alive and grows. If someone else could be doing it as well, there are no barriers to stop them from being a capitalist themselves. It therefore stands to reason that the vast majority of people who aren't capitalists were lacking either the motivation or the means to be one.

In short, workers are likely to lack the skills needed to keep the thing alive, let alone expand it. And any worker who doesn't is immediately in a power position that allows him or her to command others around and demand greater material compensation.

Whether workplace democracy is inherently inefficient has yet to be proven on the ground. I would argue, however, that the fact that a democratized factory manages to maintain operation in the face of active opposition from the state, other businesses and banks, where the same factory operating within the capitalist model and enjoying state support failed, says a lot.
At the very least democratisation is not what it promises to be. Large factories can have 40,000+ workers. You can't make every single decision subject to majority approval, so it would have to be a representative democracy. Since it's unworkable, and unwise, to change the entire bureaucracy of such a system every time an election happens, it's gonna end up just like a modern country. You vote for the top boss who is essentially a figurehead, but nothing every really changes. And occasionally you get George Bush.

Compensation differences aren't, on the whole, wrong. It depends on whether the difference is justifiable. Differences based upon the value of work (ie, a doctor vs. an actor) and effort (diligence vs. laziness) are justifiable.
Who judges what the value of work is? Who judges effort?

Capitalism justifies the differences with the interplay of supply and demand. That's basically a neutral way of doing it, where everyone gets to judge things personally but the result tends towards an efficient allocation of resources. Any alternative has to be centrally managed, and the idea that anyone would be sufficiently informed, objective and qualified enough to do that is quite silly.

What redistribution?
The change in de facto ownership of the factory. It created no value, it just redistributed it. Great for newspaper headlines, not a valid basis for the economic future of mankind.

The average American wage-earner is intentionally given a false impression of the proposed alternatives to capitalism by the media and the government. They are neither stupid nor brainwashed; the reliability of the information they receive through education, news and popular media is suspect.
And yet you are an exception. How come you have access to information that the average American wage-earner does not?

I would say that they don't realise they've been fed a load, or see that if they are going to make a fair examination of the alternatives, they need to actively look elsewhere. They trust that their education especially is unbiased, when in reality any critical examination will show that education is social engineering.
Education is a balancing act between producing people who have skills that allow them to trade with others and producing people who know stuff for its own sake.

I've never been to school in the States, but I have been in Germany and Australia. We've never been taught about various left-libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist or other fairly obscure ideologies (the same goes for the free-market libertarian ones, by the way). We were taught about marxism, though not in huge depth. We were taught about the Soviet Union and real-life communism, but is that bias?

Fact of the matter is that we are able to find more information and learn, and that most people just couldn't give a shit. You can't blame the people designing the education system for having limited resources and time available and leaving some of the possible knowledge of the universe out of the curriculum. You can blame the individuals for then failing to plug the gaps.