In the US, the last major legislative victory for Labor was in 1935 with the passage of the Wagner Act which guaranteed workers the right to bargain on an equal footing with management and the right to organize. Its been downhill for most part ever since.
The thought of Labor movements actually having an impact back then must have really scared the big corporations (the "crisis" of democracy as they call it). And the corporations certainly didn't sit back and allow the "crisis" to worsen. Since 1935, the corporate offensive on Labor has been very effective.
The most interesting technique that was used to avert the "crisis" in democracy is the 'Mohawk Valley Formula' which was originally developed by the Remington Rand Corporation. This was called a 'scientific method of strike-breaking'. The main goal of this formula was to generate popular fear and hatred of labor in the general public. From wikipedia, "The Mohawk Valley formula was a corporate plan for strikebreaking to discredit union leaders, frighten the public with the threat of violence, use local police and vigilantes to intimidate strikers, form puppet associations of "loyal employees" to influence public debate, fortify workplaces, employ large numbers of replacement workers, and threaten to close the plant if work is not resumed."
So we appear to have a steady downward slide into wage slavery:
- Minimum wage is a joke. In fact, its so low that a 40 hour week is by default not viable.
- American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9%--levels not seen since 1932.
- In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration essentially informed the business world that they were not going to prosecute them for violating the law. One of the things that happened is that OSHA, the Office of Safety and Health Administration, regulations were either not investigated or prosecuted.
- Service sector jobs ? What's not to like ?
- Bush's anti-labor actions
- See Effort to make unions disappear from ProjectCensored.
- See The Bush Administration's Anti-Labor Record is Bad for Working Families from the Democratic Policy Committee.
4 comments:
The truth I'm confident lies somewhere in the middle, as with most things. Being part of a corporate empire that works hard to stay away from unions I have a healthy respect for both being non-unionized and for the fair treatment of the non-exempt work force; fortunately these aren't exclusive. There are plenty of cases where unions hold corporations to ransom (UPS strike in the late 90's); pilots unions are notorious for their arrogance and usually get what they want (maybe not passenger co. pilots so much these days).
Anyway, I like to think that things aren't as bleak as your blog and the articles make it sound. After all it's not like there is an unlimited work force to replace the existing one, and it's not like there is a disproportionate share of people below the poverty line.
I think taking the middle ground is just a denial technique. Also, whether my blog is bleak or not is highly subjective.
Also, in most cases, there are an unlimited number of replacement workers and the number of people who are willing to work shit jobs for shit pay is incredibly high. Just because someone is not below the poverty line (whatever that means) doesn't mean their quality of life is good (since they probably have to work 2 jobs and have no health insurance anyway). This is exactly why workers need bargaining powers so they won't get laid off in the next "business cycle".
To me its pretty obvious that a corporation is based on maximizing shot term profit. So there isn't any reason for them to be nice to labor. A corporation, by definition, isn't a benevolent entity, it's more like a malignant tumor. Thats just the way its designed, and thinking otherwise is just a form of justification.
Not having a middle ground means there are no shades of grey which makes decision making difficult, no? Many a time I find myself drawn neither way (on many matters), maybe this makes me indecisive but it also keeps me satisfied with my choices. Wouldn't there be 2 distinct parts to the entire world if there were no middle ground? There wld be fewer wars, deaths, etc. if there were more middle grounds. No?
'Shades of Gray' may make sense in some cases ...but it's kind of less effective when the issues at hand have to do with poverty, freedom, starvation, global warming, nuclear disarmament etc. that can't wait. So what I'm suggesting is extreme measures that bring about positive change when middle ground just doesn't make any sense. I'm not suggesting extreme measures when shades of gray truly exist. Neither am I talking about extreme measures such as using nuclear weapons and cluster bombs on civilians, invading under the guise of democracy and other atrocities perpetrated by the state.
Middle ground results in abominations such as the Democratic party. It doesn't work with addiction ("I'll just have a few drinks"). I'll quit smoking ... on my birthday (right) . The oil based economy isn't sustainable even if we use moderate amounts of hydrocarbons. Some nuclear weapons are not ok, we need complete disarmament.
Real, positive change is just not negotiable. Corporate social reponsibility is a load of crap. They have to be held accountable to rigorous standards defined outside of it's institutional structure. What's that phrase about the fox guarding the henhouse ?
Often, middle ground also loses it's legitimacy when the the range of options/spectrum of possible opinions is intentionally limited (refer to American political system). So middle ground is just the center of a limited range of options, in which case it isn't really center anymore.
Post a Comment