Unions Finally Reaching Out

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Sarcasm detector going off, or you don't know what your talking about.
Give everyone a million dollars and a million dollars won't buy you a loaf of bread. Dollars are just paper with ink on them, they have no value if no one has faith in them.
Click to expand...
Your argument requires a bad example. Nobody is suggesting paying workers more than is proportional to their contribution, we are suggesting not paying them less.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Unions were essential in the US at one point in history. The problem now is third world conditions. When it is cheaper to outsource, capitalists will outsource. It is cheaper to outsource because living conditions in other countries is so poor. Case in point, Gina Rinehart's rare earths industry in Australia can not compete with the prices offered by African workers who are paid less than 2 dollars a day. There you have a first world country starting to find problems with unions, which played a pivotal role in raising the standard of living which made them a first world nation.

Modern day slavery is going on and yet the solution seems to come to mind immediately, pay our people less and reduce benefits. No, unionize third world labor.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
It isn't referring to tax. It isn't a stand against tax either. It's from IWW, it advocates greater pay and benefits for workers. The point is that rank and file workers perform the function that is most productive in the enterprise and that their reward should match their contribution. CEOs and managers do not perform a function that is as productive as that which rank and file workers do, and yet they benefit the most directly from the increased productivity of the workers. This is at the heart of wage slavery.

Look at the outlandish counter examples Harrekin has to employ to make his point, they also ignore this, he suggests it doesn't make sense to pay them more, because it would break the system if they were paid extremely high salaries. Nobody is suggesting paying them higher than what is proportional to their productivity.

You took this as an attack on your statist views, and while I do have plenty to say about that, it wasn't where I was coming from with this.
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree that I did take it as such. Mine was a knee jerk reaction to the words. I don't usually agree with any knee jerk reactions but I will stand on this one. No matter who says it or why they say it, taking the product of one's labor, even 100 percent of it, is not slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top