I can’t see how a labor union would have helped the situation you described. Could you elaborate?
You ask yourself, how many more commas can you have in a sentence? And the answer is none, no more commas. 
Are you basing that on any real data or just making up numbers?
Someone’s got a full diaper.
Really? Then how did these small farms survive for better than a hundred years?
Bullshit. Mexico has a fairly progressive labor law.
Social Security
Fuck, if you can read Spanish, here’s the goddamned homepage for the Social Security Service of Mexico. http://www.imss.gob.mx/
You might also be interested to know, but I doubt it since you appear to prefer wallowing in your pitiful ignorance, that Mexican Labor Law provides for mandatory profit sharing. In addition, the Mexican Labor Law has provisions for an eight hour work day, overtime pay, obligatory holidays, vacations, severance pay . . .
Spavined Gelding, I have to ask you as well, how would a Labor Union have in any way helped or changed the outcome of the situation you describe?
Also, even sven, I’m all for unions, have no problem with unions, but if my grocery checker, who for God’s sake is making more money than I am, has to pony up a few bucks each month for their families health insurance when I PERSONALLY am putting up well over $100 per month for mine, and wants to form a picket line about it, you’re damn tooting I’m going to cross it. Repeatedly.
I’m with even sven on this one. I consider capitalism a powerful but flawed machine which needs vigorous regulation to work effectively. Unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate power and wealth into the hands of the already powerful, and to diminish the amount of wealth and power available to the weak and poor. It will do that so powerfully and effectively that it will literally destroy a society by destroying its workers – the sort of things that went on in England when Karl Marx was there, frex.
Unlike Marx, I think it’s not necessary to have a workers’ revolution, but the workers do need a mechanism to protect themselves from the worst effects of capitalism. Unions and governmental regulation are the key.
Right now the neocons, the last gasp of American fascism, have their hands on the machinery of the state and are pressing capitalism as hard as it will go toward creating power and wealth for the wealthy and powerful. As a result, the lot of lower-class workers is simply abysmal, and middle-class workers are getting chewed up, too.
My feeling is that we need something like trade unions for middle class workers, especially office workers. Things are starting to get bad enough that some middle class folks are starting to understand this, but they’re going to have to get a lot worse before the majoirty of them do.
If Bush gets re-elected in 2004, I think things WILL get a lot worse. If the Dems get in, they’ll attempt to palliate conditions with mild government controls. This might prevent middle class workers organizing if it works, but I don’t know if it will
I see interesting times ahead in any event. America under the neocons is a last-gasp attempt at unfettered capitalism which I’m pretty sure will blow itself out in the next decade or so. Then we’ll move to a more humane society more like the European social democracies. Esp. when all those baby boomers find themselves retiring with benefit of social security.
Enjoy it while you can, fiscal conservatives, the ride’s about over.
uh, second to last paragraph, last sentence, should read: “baby boomers retiring without benefit of social security.”
And I’ll move to Belize and live on an island. European social democracies are way more inhumane than current American society, at least by my definition of humane.
Out of curiosity, Evil Captor, how could neocons be simultaneously pushing unfettered capitalism and also be fascists given that a key element of fascism is government control of the economy?
I think you truly are with even sven in that you are using this thread to rant about things you don’t like without much regard for accuracy.
I am not a necon and I’m not defending them, but your post is not a very lucid defense of even sven’s less than lucid OP.
“I am struck by the curious reflection that if everything is inevitable, as our élites tell us, well then we don’t really need them. After all, this is the biggest and most expensive élite in history. Either they should do their job or make way.”
- John Ralston Saul, Reflections of a Siamese Twin
Disclaimer: I am a registered Democrat.
I don’t even know where to begin with how much utter, absolute bullshit your OP is. Who the hell said (or implied) ANY of the above nonsense? I don’t agree that the grocery workers’ grievances are a valid reason to strike, let alone for me not to go to my grocery store to buy food for my family, and somehow you glean that that means I think poor people = bad people and that they “deserve” to live in poverty?
WTF?
What planet are you living on?
Besides, which, the notion that grocery employees are in “low-wage jobs” is a fallacy. And a ridiculous one, at that.
As I mentioned in that other thread, my college boyfriend was a union grocery store worker for many, many years. It was actually a great job and an excellent opportunity for him. He started in high school as a stock clerk and worked his way up through the ranks to become a store manager. He got time-and-a-half for weekend work and double-time for working holidays. He was making between $15 and $20/hour straight time and put himself through college. And not a 2-year community college, but a full 4-year University. He earned an accounting degree and when he graduated, the company hired him in their headquarters offices to work in the accounting department.
I’m still crossing that fucking picket line. I think these people are greedy, selfish, not living in reality and just plain wrong. Now, not only are they affecting the businesses they wish to extort more money out of, but the nearby businesses are being adversely affected, as well. People aren’t going to the local Thai restaurant or the beauty supply shop or the card store because the damn picketers with their bigass sticks and signs and massess of people and yelling and chanting are scaring shoppers away from entire strip malls. Please explain to me how it is right or fair that other business owners suffer because these fucks are too cheap to kick in $20 to pay for their families’ healthcare?
And now some of the Ralph’s employees who either don’t agree with the stance and are willing to put their money towards their own healthcare, or just need to feed their families now and can’t afford to on strike wages, are trying to go back to work. And being harrassed and financially penalized for it by their union. It’s their fucking job and they want to go to work! But no, the union says they have to act like a goddamn herd of animals. There’s no room for individuality and personal responsibility here.
That’s just plain wrong.
You are right to point out this inconsistency. The real problem with so much neocon dogma is that it espouses free markets for the poor, and socialism and other government assistance for the rich, in the form of corporate bailouts, government contracts, etc. America is still a welfare state; it’s just that the welfare doesn’t help the poor very much any more.
I don’t want to get into a neocon hijack, but I basically agree with you.
even sven, I sympathize with your overall viewpoint except that I do have to go along with the people who say they are selective about which strikes they support.
But I really am curious about one thing you said.
I agree that there are classes in America but I’m not sure about your particular example. I’m not sure how things are there in California but here in the Philadelphia area I regularly see smiling black and brown faces serving me in restaurants and I regularly see white ones bussing tables, and vice versa of course. Was that simply hyperbole or is it really like that in California? I’m not asking that as a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely curious.
Huh?
No offense, matt, but perhaps you could make your point a little clearer.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay. So I blew the bonus question. My apologies.
Spavined Gelding’s claims, however, are still bullshit. Mexico’s labor law provides for Social Security and workers’ compensation.
I’m all for unions. They should push as hard as they can and get whatever benefits they can for their members. Just as management is trying to get as much work as cheaply as possible from the workers. When both sides look at the long term, it’s not unusual for them to see more eye to eye. Managers who lay off workers at the drop of a hat, have trouble keeping good workers when jobs are more plentiful-- why work for a company that’s going to screw you over if you can go work somewhere that won’t. And workers who press for concessions that weaken the companies competitive position are equally guilty of not seeing the long term issues.
We, the consumers, are left to figure out each case individually. I want good products at good prices with good service. I’ll sometimes pay more for something if I like the service or the convenience. Other things are comodities that can be bought anywhere and I don’t give a shit about who I get them from. Many grocery items fall pretty squarely in the latter category.
To suggest that someone should back the union position mindlessly is asking that person not to think. That’s contrary to what this whole Message Board is all about.
I agree that a corporate bailout is tantamount to corporate welfare in many cases. But why “government contracts”? It seems to me that if the government contracts with a corporation to provide a product or service, there’s nothing remotely welfare-ish about it.
- Rick
For the sake of argument, if you did this would you no longer have an internet connection? That would be pretty sweet!