This story is pointless without knowing what the manger asked the guy to do.
Did he ask him to cover up a murder?
Did he ask him to stop calling other people the n-word?
Makes a big difference.
…I mean, didn’t I just say this?
You’ve read an awful lot into what I said. What bit are you misinterpreting? Was it the “living wage” part? You think paying a living wage is “paternalism”? Or was it something else?
We’re smitten with financially successful people, particularly if they receive acclaim for being innovative. I’m guilt of this as well.
For many years - perhaps centuries - Americans have bought into this idea that people get what they deserve. If they’re poor, it’s because of some vice, or because they’re not virtuous enough. If they’re rich, it’s because they earned it or they’re just naturally smarter than everyone else and are just taking advantage of God’s endowment.
That’s why Trump was able to get away with essentially bragging that he didn’t pay a whole lot of taxes. I am fairly certain that this by itself would have been an outrage and would have doomed a candidate in some countries’ elections, but not here. Nope. It’s a badge of honor.
Looks to me like there could be two possible problems:
-
Said manager doesn’t have a system of progressive discipline in which he documents and directly deals with problematic employees.
-
Management knows that the company’s probably not doing enough to attract and keep good people.
Of course it is the law and normal is every office I was responding to this:
That seems to think it isn’t normal business. There are certainly employees that would kick employees to the curb for getting hurt on the job. There are also employers who go above and beyond the legal requirements because they believe they owe it to their employees.
This seems to imply that you think political work can only be done by unions. There have been a lot of pro worker regulations passed all all of them required the vote of non-union people. Union are great political forces certainly equal with the NRA or ALCU but I don’t think you should have to join the NRA to have a job at Smith and Wesson either. Workers could easily build PACs and donate to them to support political action.
…LOL.
Not everybody has the opportunity to work for a union. However, one of the hallmarks of pro worker regulations is the collective action of people driving change. Unions exist to collectively bargain with business owners, rather than leave workers to bargain individually.
Passing laws is another way of achieving collective action. In some ways it’s better than unionization, in some ways it isn’t.
That’s one feature of unions but very far from the only one. Unions derive much of their power from their ability to weaken management position via favorable laws (e.g. requiring management to bargain with them versus leaving it to the force of “collective action”) and by intimidating other people from crossing their picket lines.
No, the part I have a problem with is where you said employers would do these things for the employees (which I quoted below for reference). I prefer a system where the employees are able to get these things due to their own efforts rather than have to receive them due to the good will of their employer.
…I don’t even understand what this means. And I have no idea why this is your takeaway from what I said. The expectation is that the workers would also have to do the job they are being paid for is given. In a perfect world the employer would do the right thing, and the employee would do the right thing. I didn’t explicitly spell that out because I didn’t think I had too.
But I’m still not clear on exactly what your point is.
And management/employers don’t do exactly the same thing (i.e., seeking to get favorable laws enacted)?
Unions doing it is just them trying to level the playing field.
This ^ Some managers get pissed because unionized workers are led by people who can hold them accountable if they don’t follow their own rules and the law. A lot of managers would rather just have employees do whatever they say, which is probably the kind of dictatorial authority managers wish they had. In some ways, unions actually make managers’ jobs easier and can hold employees accountable too. Managers can’t get away with having favorites. It can make the team more productive.
It takes a manager who knows how to manage though. Not everyone does.
Perhaps you can clarify what type of laws you’re referring to. To my knowledge, the absence of any and all laws relating to unions would be much much more favorable to management than the current situation. To the extent that management wants “favorable laws” enacted, it’s generally just in freedom from pro-union laws, and is not at all comparable to what the unions are looking for.
The context here is the extent to which the unions are all about “collective action”.
I don’t think it is helpful to you to get into the specifics of how labour, welfare and safety laws are developed and enacted in the UK and the EU, however you are correct in stating that non-labour input is required as well.
There are any number of ways worker legislation is put into place, but one common way is to have proposals lobbied by all sorts of organisations, from charities, trusts, industry, insurance, and other interested parties.
Unions have very direct influence on politicians due to their ability to locally influence voting patterns in some industries, the unions themselves will develop strategies to work out which particualr union is best placed for the most effective campaign.
It is very common to have to work with other interested parties, so - for example we might look at data and discover certain industries seem to have higher cases of certain industrial diseases - the campaign may well start off campaigining for a formal academic gathering of evidence. Insurance companies might well be highly averse to such work - as demonstrated by Turner and Newall’s reprehensible lies about asbestos.
The point is that unions are made up of members, all of whom have votes, but also have a need to earn income, so interests are not always straightforward, compromises often need to be made.
In the UK the traditional political power that favours employment law is the Labour party - the unions make contributions to enable the functioning of Labour - however there is a very effective lobby against workers rights and any organisation that might support them by employers organisations.
Oftentimes you can only move the chains a few yards, and unions will keep at it in the hope of reaching the next stage or first down - so its usually bit by bit.
Some employers will be heavily on board with some labour rights - all they are after is that all their competitors have to compete on the same terms instead of undercutting on price through poor industrial practices.
Whilst Victorian philanthropists did achieve some social and work related improvements, it is undeniable that far greater progress and far faster progress has been made with worker engagement - factory owners of the industrial revolution were never to be trusted with workers welfare, and although its nice to have an enthical/moral input from intellectuals, nothing works better than the involvement of the people directly affected.
We have been undergoing the neoliberal industrial revolution for a good 20 years now, and for lots of folk it just isn’t working out - the disparities increase and employment security is being eroded whilst responsibility for the environment seems to mean nothing unless some $ can be attached to its value.
So yes, its time workers started to engage more and roll back some of the controls placed upon them, the media monopolies of the wealthy, the lies told by the media grifters - if the war is for knowledge then this information age is the battleground - how can I convince you of industrial/environmental reality when your main information sources are so heavily influenced by business influenced media?
Let me offer a parallel and see if that gets the point across.
You wrote: In a perfect world you wouldn’t need unions. Employers would simply pay their staff a fair living wage, share profits, offer outstanding work conditions.
Now imagine it’s 1970 and somebody wrote In a perfect world women wouldn’t need jobs. Their husbands would simply pay the bills and buy them anything else they needed.
The hypothetical person saying this is missing the issue of empowerment. The equal rights movement wasn’t about women having enough money. It was about women having control over how they got money. They deserved equal rights so they could earn their own money and not be dependent on somebody else.
That’s the parallel I see in what you’ve written. Unions aren’t just about the workers getting good wages. Unions are about the workers having a voice in determining what their wages are and not just having to depend on what their employer decides.
Thanks I appreciate the interesting reply.
Remarkable post. Especially for the Pit. Thanks. Nail on the head, etc.
What you’re describing is sometimes called the Friedman doctrine. Fifty years ago Milton Friedman said “In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires … the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation … and his primary responsibility is to them.”
It’s not the only way to go. A competing idea is called stakeholder theory, which says that the employees, customers, suppliers and the local community should also be a consideration in how a company is managed.
…I mean, what the fuck?
It was a throw-away example used to illustrate a larger point. I spent literally 10 seconds thought on it total. It wasn’t a thesis statement on “what I believed the perfect world would be.” And my “perfect world” didn’t exclude unions having a voice just because I didn’t explicitly mention them for fucks sakes. But the details of what a “perfect world” would be are entirely tangential to the larger point of that post.
Please feel free to completely substitute my version of an imaginary-hypothetical-never-to-exist-perfect-world-that-I literally-spent-seconds-constructing for your version of a imaginary-hypothetical-never-to-exist-perfect-world-that-you literally-spent-seconds-constructing if that makes you feel better. It doesn’t change the larger point I was making one bit.
You said you didn’t understand my post so I explained it. It was not my intent to upset you.