Occupy Wall Street

[Der Morgenstern]

I'm always glad to see Cyth posting.

 

[Einherjar86]

Workers vs corporations are a false dichotomy created by our current system.

Unions are merely another layer of beaurocracy that mooches off the worker, and guts productivity and savings.

I agree. The concept of "unionization" introduces bureaucracy and hierarchy into the notion of organized liberalist action, and merely complicates the whole entire process, actually making it more detrimental to workers.

It creates an illusion by which it gives employees the impression: "If you want to be treated fairly and receive proper wages, you NEED to unionize." This is entirely misguided; if employees are treated unfairly, the company will face consequences whether it allows its employees to unionize or not. Essentially, I think that unionization is a pointless and complicated stage that, once distorted, appears to workers as something necessary and progressive.

 

[Dak]

Essentially, I think that unionization is a pointless and complicated stage that, once distorted, appears to workers as something necessary and progressive.

You could substitute "government beaurocracy" in for unionization and "voters" for workers and be equally correct.

 

[Vimana]

I'm sure Anon initiated OWS, but they've definitely lost control at this point.

So far, yes. The protestors started protesting right after phase one and have taken it a little too far, adding in Marxist ideas I haven't seen in Anon's messages. However, I think things will be far more under Anon's control after the withdrawal for the winter. They're going to have a number of months with which to strengthen and clarify their message, as well as to plan changes.

 

[Draehl]

Unions are an amazing economic feature so long as they don't grow too powerful. An overpowered union is worse than no union at all.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Exactly.

 

[Dak]

It's cool when opinions fly in the face of fact. Unions are not an ecomomic feature. They are an economic drain.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

So you're against workers organizing among themselves to bargain for better wages and working conditions?

 

[Einherjar86]

Unionization shouldn't be necessary for organized action.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is an interesting article, the main subject of which is:

But the evictions also raise deeper grammatical issues about the way in which we discuss the Occupy movement – even within our limited forums of free speech. I've argued in the New York Times that the idea of a leaderless occupation movement represents a new paradigm of political resistance – what we might call "political disobedience" – that demands a new vocabulary. I'd like to suggest here that it also calls for an entirely new grammar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../30/occupy-new-grammar-political-disobedience

 

[Dak]

So you're against workers organizing among themselves to bargain for better wages and working conditions?

If they want to organize, they can organize and start their own business.

 

[Death Aflame]

If they want to organize, they can organize and start their own business.

So in your ideal society you would outlaw the freedom of workers to organize and bargain with employers? If so, how do you square this with your pro-free market stance?

 

[Einherjar86]

They should be able to organize without the hassle and bureaucracy of forming a union. Unionization creates the illusion that workers needs a legal right to unionize in order to enact change in their labor environment. Ideally, any worker should be able to communicate and bargain with upper management no matter what, union or no. Furthermore, workers should be allowed to assemble among themselves (without the needless confusion of union dues and regulations) and make demands on their employer, if they feel they're being treated poorly.

If employers are hostile toward any form of worker organization, and would rather exploit their employees, then they will likely fire anyone who organizes; but those employers will also find it difficult to secure a labor force in the future, thus forcing them to alter the way they run their businesses if they want to remain competitive in the future.

There are other issues I haven't addressed here (like the ease of finding other jobs, employers forming alliances to ensure worker submission, etc.), but ideally, I believe that workers should have the right to organize without being forced into the hierarchy of labor unions.

 

[Dak]

Laws are unneceassry. Sure, let workers unionize. But the owner/management has equal right to fire/replace them.

If worker(s) feel they are not fairly treated/compensated, they can affect change without creating another mooching beaurocracy. If not, then they can find other employment or form a business (and be productive instead of leeching) with what were potential union members.

IF the employer is absolutely deplorable, as Einherjar suggested, he will shortly be unable to secure a labor force.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Hey Dak, have you read The Driver? It's pretty good pro-capitalism fiction (there are some interesting similarities with Atlas Shrugged but the plot is completely different) and there was a group in the book called "Coxyists" that were spot on with Occupy Wall Street. It hit good points on unemployment and Wall Street booms and busts as well.

 

[Death Aflame]

They should be able to organize without the hassle and bureaucracy of forming a union. Unionization creates the illusion that workers needs a legal right to unionize in order to enact change in their labor environment. Ideally, any worker should be able to communicate and bargain with upper management no matter what, union or no. Furthermore, workers should be allowed to assemble among themselves (without the needless confusion of union dues and regulations) and make demands on their employer, if they feel they're being treated poorly.

If employers are hostile toward any form of worker organization, and would rather exploit their employees, then they will likely fire anyone who organizes; but those employers will also find it difficult to secure a labor force in the future, thus forcing them to alter the way they run their businesses if they want to remain competitive in the future.

There are other issues I haven't addressed here (like the ease of finding other jobs, employers forming alliances to ensure worker submission, etc.), but ideally, I believe that workers should have the right to organize without being forced into the hierarchy of labor unions.

Interesting points. But what if we change the example from America to a place like China where, in sweatshops at least, worker exploitation and dangerous conditions are the norm? Do you still oppose unions even in cases like these or historical cases of industrialization in the West?

If you still oppose unions in cases like sweatshops, what is to be done there? I think I know how Dak will respond since most right-leaning libertarians put forth the same argument: given that the alternatives are worse, sweatshops are a godsend for the working class in developing nation. This is a strong position economically as far as it goes, but strikes me as morally short-sighted.

Also, concerning your your definition of a union. When does an effective free association of workers cease and an ineffectual, bureaucratic union begin? Is it necessarily the case that the latter always follows in the former in development? In other words, can unions not be flat, relatively non-hierarchical organizations that are run democratically and not from the top down?

 

[Einherjar86]

Damn it DA, this is supposed to be my reading time!

Interesting points. But what if we change the example from America to a place like China where, in sweatshops at least, worker exploitation and dangerous conditions are the norm? Do you still oppose unions even in cases like these or historical cases of industrialization in the West?

I think serious differences in cultural conditioning and upbringing have to do with differing perceptions in how employees are treated. That said, I definitely do think that conditions in certain Chinese sweatshops are horrible and that they exploit their workers. We can debate back and forth whether this is my own social lens affecting my opinion, or whether it's the actual case. Testimony from Chinese workers does suggest that how they're treated differs from what employers state publicly about their treatment.

If you still oppose unions in cases like sweatshops, what is to be done there? I think I know how Dak will respond since most right-leaning libertarians put forth the same argument: given that the alternatives are worse, sweatshops are a godsend for the working class in developing nation. This is a strong position economically as far as it goes, but strikes me as morally short-sighted.

Good point. I would say that even in a sweatshop you can have leaderless organized opposition to employee exploitation; but I'll say again that I think culturally, in regions such as China, employees have a different perception of what "exploitation" is. I'm not sure I'm answering your question though; basically, worker organization can happen anywhere, in any company or corporation, even a sweatshop. I just think it's more difficult in certain regions because of cultural and social conditioning.

Also, concerning your your definition of a union. When does an effective free association of workers cease and an ineffectual, bureaucratic union begin? Is it necessarily the case that the latter always follows in the former in development? In other words, can unions not be flat, relatively non-hierarchical organizations that are run democratically and not from the top down?

I think that if the purpose of labor unions is the fair treatment of workers, we can basically boil that down to the guarantee of essential individual liberties (i.e. "I, as an employee, deserve a certain amount of value in exchange for my labor; if I don't receive it, that infringes on my personal liberty and I have a right to react").

Since labor unions are essentially a guarantee of individual liberty, I see them as potentially revolutionary tools. They're put in place to react when workers' rights are denied. However, in our current economic system, they've become preemptive measures; that is, they're already in place in order to dissuade employers from exploiting their workers. This leads to imbalance in the other direction, since unions now have the ability to make excessive demands and stifle productivity.

Furthermore, unions, as a preemptive measure, follow certain general regulations, usually assigning an individual to a leadership position and having levels of association and power throughout. This doesn't only lead to decreased productivity, but also to decreased freedoms of workers who are lower, so to speak, on the union ladder, and whose opinions aren't necessarily taken into consideration as much as those who are higher up, or those who go out for beer with the union head on Saturdays.

Revolutionary tools lose their potency when they're instituted as preemptive measures like this because they adopt centralized planning methods and become absorbed into the working ideology of the system. I believe that in order for workers' rights to be respected, the threat of potential opposition must always be present, but not in the form of institutionalized/centralized organizations. Revolution isn't something achieved through hierarchical power structures as situated within the system they wish to challenge. Instead, workers need to realize their revolutionary potential as necessary components of a company, and to actualize that potential when they're treated unfairly.

 

[Dak]

Interesting points. But what if we change the example from America to a place like China where, in sweatshops at least, worker exploitation and dangerous conditions are the norm? Do you still oppose unions even in cases like these or historical cases of industrialization in the West?

If you still oppose unions in cases like sweatshops, what is to be done there? I think I know how Dak will respond since most right-leaning libertarians put forth the same argument: given that the alternatives are worse, sweatshops are a godsend for the working class in developing nation. This is a strong position economically as far as it goes, but strikes me as morally short-sighted.

Also, concerning your your definition of a union. When does an effective free association of workers cease and an ineffectual, bureaucratic union begin? Is it necessarily the case that the latter always follows in the former in development? In other words, can unions not be flat, relatively non-hierarchical organizations that are run democratically and not from the top down?

You missed my point. While I find the concept of a union merely creating a Frankenstein's monster to fight the assumed Werewolf of management, I do not suggest making it illegal. As I stated earlier:

Laws are unnecessary. Sure, let workers unionize. But the owner/management has equal right to fire/replace them.

In short, leave regulation out of it. Now, in regards to sweatshop/slave labor, how would these people unionize anyway? Obviously, the sweatshop workers are highly skilled (specifically at what they do), but not generally skilled, and possess an extreme work ethic (read: They need to eat). What conditions force them into the sweatshop? A union would do nothing to address this, and would merely create a parallel level of management, which is supposedly the problem. Also, since union wages are chasing jobs from the developed world, why would it not also chase them from one undeveloped nation to another, sending the sweatshop workers back into the conditions from whence they ran into it.

Quigley addressed the formation of social organizations to address perceived needs throughout history, in every civilization, and concluded that they always eventually turn into self-perpetuating, inefficient, and often violent (in the process of self-perpetuation) organisms. Businesses, unions, etc. are no different. The free market system allows for clearing of the inefficienies.

 

[Dak]

Revolutionary tools lose their potency when they're instituted as preemptive measures like this because they adopt centralized planning methods and become absorbed into the working ideology of the system they intended to oppose.

Very succinct, I added on the bold text for clarity.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's really weird; I actually thought I included that bit in my post, and you just highlighted it. Regardless, it was intended. So, thanks.