Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
a worker sells his labor power to capital in return for a wage.
because the worker sells his labor power--not his skill, but his ability to perform a repetitive task--and walmart (like macdo) is a very highly deskilled type of service sector work---because the worker is selling his labor power, it follows any worker who possesses labor power is interchangeable with any other. from the viewpoint of capital, this is a basic feature of labor markets in deskilled sectors.
now ace, you might not like the language, but you cannot get around the basic claim.
this means that there is a fundamental assymetry of power within wage relations--and in general terms, so long as workers remain isolated, that is so long as they interact with capital as individuals, they will always always loose. this was a primary motivation for the formation of unions in the first place: while it is the case that individual workers acting as individuals will always loose in conflicts with capital, the same situation does not obtain is workers organize themselves. acting collectively, workers can develop weapons that to some extent counters the advantage in power capital enjoys: in particular they can shut down the workplace--they can strike. by shutting down the workplace, they can endanger the existence of the enterprise--they threaten profits.
|
Please don't misunderstand my position. I have nothing against unions and I recognize the purpose they serve in centralizing power for low skilled workers. I simply support the workers right to make a choice. The worker should be free to work in a union shop and belong to the union, work in a union shop and not belong to the union, or work for a non-union shop. I think employers should have the right to deal with unions or not. If unions truely provide a benefit, the union would not have to force itself on unwilling employees. And people belonging to unions have the right to support union shops and not support non-union shops. If there is an economic cost of a shop being non-union, that shop would welcome unions. The real question comes down to - where is value being added?
Quote:
|
walmart's practices are only possible in a reactionary political context that views all worker organization as a threat. because, frankly, it IS a threat--but it is a threat that i think in general a good thing because it is the ONLY way in which the power relations that obtain between capital and workers can be meaningfully altered. walmart knows this. you, ace, know this: that is why (at one level or another) you act as though worker organization is anathema.
|
I think Walmart is over-reacting to the union issue. But I do understand their concern. Unions have ultimately hurt the US automotive industry.
The power relations between capital and workers can be altered in many ways that do not include Unions. One is when the workers buy into the capital. When employees have a vested interest in the long-term success of an organization - it forms a win-win situation (ther have been some exceptions but the exceptions are rare and mostly due to criminal behavior)
Quote:
i think working people should develop new forms of collective organization.
i think they need to develop new forms of organization--because if they dont, they are well and truly fucked and will always be well and truly fucked. this is one of the structuring features of the game of capitalism, one of the few things that is as true about that game in 2006 as it was in 1848.
|
They can get f*cked by their unions too. When to much power is given to too few, you have the receipe for problems. I think the answer is that each individual take personal ownership of what they offer the market place. They should not rely on "big brother", "big business", or "big unions".