I don’t get what the big deal is with the PATCO strike. The workers said “We don’t want to work here anymore”. The government said “Okay, we don’t want you working here anymore”. Everyone got what they wanted. Why are people complaining?
If the workers didn’t sign the contract, then they can’t be held to it. If they signed it, then it wasn’t against their will.
This is absurd, and I don’t understand how anyone with a smidgen of rationality could hold that position. If the employees could do just fine without the employers, why don’t they? The very fact that the employees work for the employers proves absolutely that the employers have something to offer the employees. Why can’t you admit that?
What possible claim do they have to the factories? What right do they have to dictate the terms under which the company can use its own property? I’d like to have you hire me for $1000/hour to clean your home. So is it okay for me to block your home so no one can get in or out until you agree to hire me? Or are there different rules for you versus other people?
The PATCO employees most certainly did not say “We don’t want to work here anymore.” They were saying “We refuse to work until our demands are met.” Big difference. They wanted to work there, but under conditions that were more suitable to them
Gross oversimplification. You’ve never found yourself in the situation of having to accept something unpleasant or unsatisfying because you find you have no better alternative?
The workers would have to take the workplaces away from the bosses first.
It proves that the bosses run society in their own interests and have the power to dictate the conditions under which their employees work.
The workers are the ones that make the goods to be sold. The source of the corporation’s profit is in their labor. That, IMO, is a stronger claim on a factory than “I have the money to invest in it”.
If the workers don’t work, the machinery doesn’t get used. Stuff isn’t produced, and profits aren’t made. The bosses want to make profits, it should be on the worker’s terms.
Then the rank and file can file a petition with the NLRB to decertify the union, or to certify a different union.
CBAs are not, by the way, contracts. They are agreements which are binding upon the employer and the union because the law makes them binding. An individual employee has no contractual rights under a CBA.
[list][li]A strike is an organized action designed to inflict damage and/or hardship upon an employer.[/li][li]Federal employees are employed by the body politic of this nations.[/li][li]The body politic of this nation has chosen not to open itself to damage from this particular source.[/li][li]I agree with that decision.[/li]
I don’t see this as an issue of tradeoffs (1 good pentition + 1 job security for your right to strike). I see this as an issue of damage control. Federal employees on strike would be intentionally inflicting harm or hardship on the citizenry of the United States. The citizenry of the United States, through its representative form of government, has decided that such an act should be discouraged through the rule of law.
When air traffic controllers went on strike they made it clear that they were willing to risk the safety of air travellers and teh economic prosperity of any American who benefited from air transport. As I said above, I think Reagan’s response was overly harsh. I do not think it was entirely unwarranted.
I do not think that it is a bad idea to prevent the military from going on strike. Or the customs service. Or the CDC. Or the treasury service. etc. etc. etc. Let us not forget that federal employees have one significant power that is not true of workers for private industry. They get to vote for the final arbiters of their salary.
Maybe I’m just a selfish bastard. Then again, I have been a federal employee. I would never have abandoned my post as a tactic in ecomic negotiations.
The law states that anyone employed in designated areas is prohibited from striking. This is for the common good. Its intent is to keep employees in related positions from holding the country hostage. Had the air traffic controllers coordinated with a couple of other unions they could have brought transportation in this country to a standstill.
Similarly, federal employees in DC are prohibited from striking, presumably to ensure that the government itself is not held hostage to labor.
Imagine if the military were allowed to strike. : shudder :
Well, sort of. The perception that shutting down a vital industry is injurious to the nation is exactly why the military can’t strike, to use your good example. It’s also why the Federal Government has tighter controls on whether airline workers can strike than on, say, ironworkers.
But in a lot of instances, it’s simply another case of the State taking a privilege to itself that it does not allow to other actors (employers, in this case) in the country. The data-input staff at a union shop can strike, for example. In fact, if they do strike, the employer is constrained as to when/whether to hire temporary or permanent replacements, whether his last offer is binding even if he made it contingent on being ratified on first vote, etc. The very same data-input staff at the Agriculture Department cannot strike at all.
The tradeoffs exist, as Spiritus pointed out. But the tradeoffs always exist, and the ability of workers to organize and strike has been an important part of tipping those tradeoffs a little toward laborers. The success of organized labor was an important part of creating the large middle classes seen in the United States, Canada and Europe. For the State to say, “well, OK them but not us” for non-vital functions seems unjust to me.
Are you arguing that this perception is not correct? If so, then I imagine that unions dearly wish to keep the illusion going. Without the perception of injury, the threat of a strike is quite empty.
Well, you have given another example of federal employees. I am not sure how you are segregating the department of agriculture from other federal agencies. Is it not “vital” enough? To how much risk must the body politic be exposed before a strike become injurious to the nation? If a strike is going to cause no harm to the employers, then it is a useless tactic. The body politic is the employer.
No, there is no difference. They were not willing to work under the conditions offered. When someone says “I don’t want to work here anymore”, that is not taken to mean “There is no conceivable situation in which I would want to work here”. It means “As things currently stand, I do not want to work here.”
In other words, they didn’t want to work there. “There” being the work situation being offered.
It is a “gross simplicification” to say that if someone chooses to do something, then it is of their will? Yes, I’ve found myself doing things I didn’t really want to do. But that is quite different from saying that I did them against my will. No one forced me to do them. I find this attitude, that anyone who doesn’t give into your demands, whatever they are, is “forcing” you, to be extremely selfish.
So the employers have something the employees need, right? And the employers supply that in exchange for labor from the employees, right? One group giving something to another group in exchange for something else is exactly what a symbiotic relationship is.
No, if the bosses ran society in their own interests they wouldn’t pay the employees anything.
The definite article is inappropiate. Their labor is a source of the corporation’s profit. The labor, in and of itself, does not provide any profit.
So “I can make this valuable” is more important than “I own this”?
No, we were talking about a situation in which there are strikebreakers, in which case the machinery gets used even if the workers are on strike. I asked you why the workers have the right to prevent people from using the machinery, and you reply that without the workers the machinery won’t get used. That makes no sense. If the machinery won’t get used without the workers, then why do the workers have to stand outside the plant to keep the machinery from being used? Why don’t they just stay home?
Well, of course a successful strike will be injurious to the employer. I guess I meant “injurious enough to justify the State disallowing people from taking job actions in concert.” I note that in the case of the air traffic controllers, not only did they strike, they got fired and the injury to the nation was fairly short-lived. I question whether the outcome would have been worse if they had been gone on strike, been replaced by the very same folks (temporarily instead of permanently) and been allowed to return to work when the strike ended, that’s all.
I guess that’s my question, too, and my objection to the State passing for itself a blanket no-strike law. If I can’t prevent my unionized employees from striking and thus injuring me, why can the State prevent it? Surely it can’t be solely because it is vital to have each and every State function staffed all the time. I really think it’s just a convenience issue, and an abuse of the State’s power.
And yeah, I just made up Agriculture Department data clerk because it sounded less vital. I honestly have no idea whether Agriculture has data entry clerks or if they’re vital to the nation, let alone whether they want to organize and strike.
It makes no difference. The signature on the contract has no legal effect until ratification occurs.
Well, I don’t. I rarely work less than 50 hours a week, and am usually in the office at least two Saturdays a month - without extra pay. And I’m very happy in my job.
Unions turn to strikes when they see no other alternative. At the simplest level, you don’t get paid when you are on strike, except for (usually inadequate) union strike funds. So, every week you are on strike requires a 2-2.5% wage increase just to break even. If you go on strike demanding a 6% raise, after about 2 1/2 weeks, you are losing money. (The break-even date obviously changes if you are looking at a multiyear contract.) So strikes are very painful, and unions (and unions members) try to avoid them (unless they are French ;)).
And of course union leaderships often act as a brake on strike activity - it’s their job to look out for the best interests of the union members. If a strike is going to do more harm then good for union members, they should persuade the membership not to strike.
You have every right to have that opinion. Other union members may disagree with you.
It is absolutely not a stupid argument. It’s called “freedom”. It’s what is most important to you. When I got out of law school, I had lots of choices of what type of work I wanted to do. Three examples suffice - corporate litigation at a large firm, with high pay, ridiculous hours, no union representation, and (IMO) very interesting work; government work, with union representation but no right to strike, decent hours, lower pay, and (again IMO) pretty boring work; or Legal Aid, with union representation with the right to strike, even lower pay, and (IMO) relatively interesting work. For me, the important consideration was the type of work - corporate litigation seemed the most interesting, and that’s where I went. I chose not to have the right to strike, and it’s not for you to gainsay that choice.
Similarly, air traffic controllers chose to go into a profession where they couldn’t strike. That later they didn’t like that restriction means they made a bad choice - it doesn’t mean that they should have the right to change the rules they voluntarily accepted.
What then what? The unions are supposed to represent the workers. If they fail to do that why should the company be punished? As far as the company is concerned, it enters into a contract with the union, and the union represents the workers. What do you want, the company to poll the employees to see if their union is representing them? A union’s union? A non-union company union rep?
So? How does this in any way affect my statemen that says that employers and employees should have the same rights, relatively speaking (that is, as applicable)?
In what way? Breaking the strike line as an “anti-strike” against a union who isn’t representing you is unpardonable? Sheesh, Olen, you’ve replaced the big bad company with the big bad union.
To strike against the company? Bullshit! The Union was the one who fucked up. why punish the company for a piece of shit union? This is terrible.
The union put the no strike clause in or agreed to it. The union is supposed to represent the workers. It failed to do this. Thus, strike against the company? Come on, man.
Labor is the source of profit, though, because it’s labor that increases the value of a product. If I have 2 pieces of leather and a needle and thread, that’s worth a certain amount. If I then sew the leather into a pair of gloves, then the added value those gloves have come from my labor. Labor is vital. I agree with Abraham Lincoln, who said
(Curious that Congress would class striking in the same category as advocating the violent overthrow of the government - but i’m sure it’s just an accident of drafting, and not an ideological statement ;))
On a more serious note, in reply to your inquiry about the situation of government employees in other countries, in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels, government employees have the right to strike, regulated by statutes of the appropriate government. Canadian labour laws are modelled on the Wagner Act, so I’m sure the system would be familiar to you, Olentzero.
Employees have to be a member of a certified union to strike, and the collective agreement has to have lapsed, and they have to exhausted mediation options and given formal notice, no strike during federal elections, etc., etc., etc., but the strike is available to them. For example, see section 102 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, governing federal public servants.
One interesting point is that as far as I know, all the Canadian jurisdictions have special acts governing the labour relations of government employees, with special provisions, more hoops etc., except for the province of Saskatchewan. Under that province’s Trade Union Act (available for download here), the ordinary laws of labour relations apply to provincial employees as well - no special regime for the provincial government, no opting out of particular provisions.
Sam Stone has often provided a simple refutation of the Labor Theory of Value. I’m not sure if it originates with him, but it’s instructive nonetheless.
Take a shovel. Sitting by itself, it does nothing–it requires labor to make it valuable. So someone takes that shovel, and spends an hour digging a hole in the ground, piling the dirt to one side. Then, they spend the next hour taking that dirt and filling in the hole they just dug until it is gone. That person has just provided two hours of labor, using a simple machine, but has produced absolutely nothing. Nothing of value has been produced at all.
Or start their own. If several hundred people are capable and willing to spend their time doing nothing more than keeping others from working, they should be and are equally capable of pooling their money, minds and resources to create a new workplace to compete with their previous employer. Of course, when we’re speaking of the government this becomes largely academic, since they’ve granted themselves a monopoly on certain services; but as a general proposition, groups of workers always have the opportunity to compete against other groups, whether one group is comprised of laborers and the other middle managers, or whether they’re all laborers.
I believe that you’ll find a similar argument in Starship Troopers - Lt. Col. Dubois uses the example of two cooks, one skilled and another unskilled, in Johnny’s civics class.
However, I believe that there is an equally simple refutation of the capital theory of value - suppose I have $10,000 and invest it in Consolidated Buggy Whips Inc. I lose my $10,000. Both the Labour theory and the Capital theory have an implied term - that there is skill in using both capital and labour, and that the more skilled uses will be (or should be) rewarded.
I don’t see how this is a refutation. All it illustrates is that not all labor has equal value. Not all capital has equal value, either. A factory equipped to manufacture spare parts for Edsels represents a lot of capital, but has rather little value because there is no appreciable demand for spare parts for Edsels.
To use your dirtmover example, all you have to do to make that labor valuable is to toss a filled coffin into the hole at the midpoint of the activity. Now the labor has become valuable. Labor, like capital, has to be applied in useful ways before it becomes valuable.
Well, KellyM pretty much covered one flaw in the shoveler illustration. Another is that the following two propositions are not logically identical:[ul]
[li]All value comes from labor[/li][li]All labor generates value[/ul][/li]
This doesn’t mean that I agree with the labor theory of value. I just think the counterexample is misguided. I am not well-versed on the strict application of the labor theory. Can someone tell me what definition of labor would be required to create the value I finds in a wild strawberry?
SEPTA strikers in Philadelphia a couple years ago shut the bus system down. Is that holding the city of Philadelphia hostage? Striking teachers have shut schools down. Is that holding the community hostage?
What’s more dangerous to me is having the federal government bring in scabs that may not be, indeed probably are not, as skilled as the striking controllers. That’s putting the public at greater risk than shutting down air travel completely while the strike is on.
Now to The Ryan:
Actually the reverse seems to be true to me. “I don’t want to work here anymore” means “There is no conceivable situation in which I would want to work here”. At least that’s how I meant it, and my boss took it, when I quit a bookstore job back in '98.
If you don’t want to do something but find yourself having to do it anyway, it’s against your will. Whether or not there actually is some physical force involved (I presume that’s what you mean when you say “No one forced me to do them”), doing something you don’t want to do is doing something against your will. There is no difference.
But this relationship has not always existed for all of human history. It is an artificial relationship and is not a requirement for the existence of society. Moreover, a symbiotic relationship implies that both sides are on a more or less equal footing. Corporations rake in more in profits than they lay out in wages; the workers create far more value than they receive. The relationship is more akin to parasitism than symbiosis.
In many places in the world that’s pretty damn close to the truth. Sweatshops here in the US, in Mexico, and in Asia pay pittances for wages. Why? Because the workers aren’t organized enough to fight back for better conditions.
In a nutshell, yes. From my point of view, anyway.
OK, try it again. Workers have the right to prevent strikebreakers from entering the factory and running the machinery because it undermines their own efforts to get better wages and better conditions. If stuff is getting produced and sold, then the bosses don’t need to worry about production being stopped by a strike - and they’re going to ignore the strikers outside. Why bother even trying if you’re going to allow your efforts to be frustrated?
Sua Sponte has this to say:
Strikes teach workers that they have the ability to organize and fight for what they believe they deserve, and more. Financial calculations like the ones you describe are a complete distraction from the issue of organizing. If union leaders put the nickel-and-dime calculations before the need to build a stronger, more militant union, then they ought to be replaced, and quickly.
So freedom stops at the choice of career, and does not extend to the freedom to alter the conditions under which you work? A paltry freedom, if you ask me.
erislover says:
Strikes don’t happen because the workers feel the union failed to represent them properly. They happen because union members feel the company has failed to live up to its end of the agreement - or the conditions proposed by management are unacceptable to them. The company should most definitely be punished for its own failures as regards relations with its labor, and that is what strikes do.
Strikebreaking benefits the company no matter what the principles behind it. No-strike clauses give the company just as much benefit. Whether or not the union “failed to represent the workers”, measures that benefit the company should be fought against.
Captain Amazing, you rock. There’s just something about a Lincoln pro-labor quote that gets me right here. thumps chest And he’s got tons of 'em, too.
Northern Piper offers this tidbit:
I haven’t read the document yet, but I gotta give props to Saskatchewan for this. That’s the kind of labor agreement this country needs.
pldennison, the labor theory of value speaks more to how that shovel itself became a tool with both value and use-value. Before labor entered the picture, the shovel was part of a tree and unsmelted ore in the ground. At that point those elements had no use-value and very little value. It is labor that cut down the tree and prepared the wood for working, and it is labor that mined the ore and extracted the iron for smelting into steel. And further labor formed the shovel’s stem from the prepared wood and molded the steel into the shovel’s blade. Now it is a tool with great use-value and, under capitalism, value - the price of its sale. From wood and ore to a shovel through labor. Labor gave the shovel its value, whether it’s being used by Cool Hand Luke or a rescue worker in New York. That is the labor theory of value, and Sam’s little anecdote is no more a refutation of it than a Ping-Pong ball floating on a stream of air is a refutation of the theory of gravity.
I see Sua has come in while I been typing this.
A wild strawberry inherently has use-value - it can be eaten and the person gets nutrition out of it. But it doesn’t have economic value. In order for that to happen, the strawberry needs to be picked, cleaned, stored, transported to market, and put on display - all tasks that involve labor. Labor transforms that strawberry into a commodity that can be sold, and the price reflects the capitalist’s effort both to cover the cost of that labor and to realize a profit from the sale of strawberries.
You appear to have forgotten that union members are people, with minor distractions like, oh, paying rent, buying their kids clothes, and putting food on the table to consider. The money to do such things isn’t coming in when the union members are on strike. Fer chrissakes, most people in this country live from paycheck to paycheck. Strikes should only be contemplated when the alternative is worse.
Union leaders who put the lovely political goals of militancy and organizing ahead of the needs of union members ought to be replaced, and quickly.
