| From : | Zwarich |
| Reply-To : | CDUI@yahoogroups.com |
| Sent : | Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:47 PM |
| To : | |
| CC : | |
| Subject : | CDUI Re: Contracts, Concessions, Slippery Slop |
Although I was recently chastised for introducing 'horizon issues' on the SOS list, I now find myself totally awed by the high quality of this 'Contracts, Concessions, Slippery Slop' (sic) discussion on SOS. It seems that the 'rank-and-file' do have a need to discuss and understand what lies on (and over) the horizon, even as we address the most immediate imperative tasks in front of us (organizing our own department on the shop floor).
A similar discussion recently took place on the CDUI (progressive carpenters) list, centered around Andrew Stern's proposals of a 'partnership' between Corporate Management and Labor. It seems that this is the same general tack being proposed by Gettelfinger at the UAW, and is the root of the very wrong-headed idea that concessions will lead to job security. Our good Sister Wellington up in Canada, and others as well, have done an excellent job of debunking the completely absurd myth that if Labor cooperates with corporate management in a 'partnership' scenario, (by accepting that concessions are demanded by 'the market)', greater job security will be gained in a 'fair-minded' trade-off.
In keeping with the impressive efforts that SOS is making to reach out to other workers, (and to the common citizenry in general), I hoped that SOS folks would be interested to see that these same ideas are taking root in many different places, among workers in many different trades.
One CDUI carpenter (Rob Mirabito) wrote:
" There are only two kinds of people, those who work and those who don't. As the IWW says, "the working class and the ruling class have nothing in common". "
This same idea seemed to be reflected in SOS by Brother Shotwell, who wrote a couple of days ago:
" Don't trust anybody who doesn't work for a living to protect our interests unless they are retired workers. "
This is the general thesis of the essay copied below, which was originally posted to the CDUI (carpenters) list (a week or so ago) as part of that discussion of a Labor 'partnership' with Corporate America. As Brother Laney pointed, Socialist bureaucracy, " replacing the rich dictators with state dictators " , does not offer us a 'solution' to our plight as working people. It is rather Democracy that offers that 'solution', whether in a Socialist economy or a Capitalist economy. For any who might care to take the time, this 2700 word essay (copied below) examines the pivotal role that Democracy, (MUCH more than either 'Socialism' or 'Capitalism'), plays in the determination of economic justice in a society. (I am not familiar with Brother Laney's reference to 'Distributism', in fact I've never heard that term before, and I would be interested to learn more about that).
Democracy is without any doubt the 'issue' that defines Progressive Labor. Democracy in our unions, and in our nation, are often discussed. It is exciting to see this SOS discussion take up these VERY progressive ideas of Democracy in the work place, proposing that workers gain vested political 'rights' within corporate management itself, (including vested 'ownership' of our jobs, as suggested by Brother Goldberg). Brother David Johnson, a very progressive (and active) UBC (and CDUI) carpenter, has often written about the successful efforts of workers in several Latin American countries to forcefully advance this issue of 'Democracy in the workplace', and the 'rights' of workers to participate directly (through Democracy) in company management.
In the current military style 'chain-of-command' corporate management model, workers have no 'rights' at all, other than those for which we are willing to fight. The military/Corporate Management model does not recognize even 'collective bargaining' itself as a 'right'. If Corporate Interests are successful in their current thrust to completely break the back of Organized Labor, they will eradicate collective bargaining completely. Unions will be no more than service bureaucracies, (as they are already becoming), working directly (through a sub-contract arrangement) for corporate management to ensure that workers remain compliant to serving corporate needs and power. Unions will indeed become 'partners' with Corporate America, in an unholy collusion to keep workers ignorant of our own inherent human and moral rights, and prevented from seizing any power for ourselves through militant (collective) action.
RZ
For any who might be interested, here is that previous essay:
Many thanks to Brothers Johnson and Mirabito for these comments. This opens up a broad discussion whose natural progression leads to an evaluation of 'Capitalism v. Socialism', as well as the 'mission critical' role of Democracy in the society's governance (under either system). This discussion will not be of interest to many, (since it requires 'droning on' in a lot of words, which tries the attention span of many), but if we (Progressive Labor) are going to prevail, it will be necessary that virtually ALL of us, as a democratic collective of working people, come to some coherent basic understanding of these issues. Many working people, of course, already have a solid basic and instinctual grasp of these issues, but distressingly, many workers are easily distracted and 'taken in' by all manner of Big Money and Big Labor propaganda.
When you take 'Capital' out of the equation, with a collectively owned Means of Production (under a Socialist system), you STILL have 'Management' and 'Labor'. Although the actual historical experiments with Socialism demonstrate this very clearly and emphatically, many want to ignore this empirical evidence and build fanciful 'castles in the air', where wealth, under mythical 'Socialism', is divided fairly out of a pure moral sense of 'goodness' held by the Socialist State. Historically speaking, Socialist governments have almost all been totalitarian governments, (name the exceptions), but that glaring fact notwithstanding, many want to believe that calling a system of anti-democratic absolute (totalitarian) authority 'Socialism' somehow guarantees that workers are afforded social justice, and an equitable division of wealth.
But the fact that the 'plant' is owned by the 'State' in a Socialist system, (or theoretically, (figuratively speaking), by the workers), rather than by private investors, does not remove the distinction of interests between "those who work and those who don't" (as Brother Mirabito put it), nor does it provide for protection of the interests of workers.
Management is made up of people who sit in comfortable chairs and read, and talk on the phone, and travel to new and interesting places to talk to other managers, and have high-level meetings on the golf course, and at luxury hotels, restaurants, etc. Management, whether hired by capitalist investors or appointed by socialist state bureaucrats, knows nothing of the repetitive drudgery of work. But Management, in EITHER system, makes the decisions, and therefore THEY hold authority over 'those who work'.
The Managers in Socialist systems, (who inevitably amalgamate their interests into a privileged Management Class), still end up driving cooler cars, wearing better clothes, living in nicer houses in the best neighborhoods (with the best views of the mountains and/or the beach), and, (of course), getting the prettiest girls and/or the most handsome (or most powerful) men for themselves.
Putting forward an expression of a noble and altruistic human ideal, such as 'From each according to her or his ability, TO each according to his or her need', (the basic ethos of Socialism), is very poetic, and it certainly can be highly inspirational to large numbers, (even masses), of people. The one big problem is that it clashes with actual Human Nature, and therefore does not work in actual practice.
Over time, people just cannot, and do not, behave that way, simply because our most basic, instinctual, DNA-derived motivations command us imperatively that we all want the best comforts and advantages, (and certainly the prettiest girl, etc) for ourselves. The Noble Ideal that underlies Socialism simply does not work in actual practice, among actual human beings, in the real world. It is simply beyond our power to modify our biologically determined and defined basic Human Nature. EVERY young man wants that prettiest girl, and EVERY young woman wants the handsomest and most powerful man, etc, etc. This is entirely beyond the power of any political system to change. (That may be a far reaching simplification, but it IS the 'basic deal' among our species).
The key to solving this intractable problem, before we either blow the whole world up competing to have the best and the most 'stuff' for ourselves, or choke to death on the fumes of our poisoned air as we freely indulge our very human desire, seems to involve devising a system that allows for the natural incentive for biological competition, but guides it into channels that are useful and valuable to the society. Human Nature also contains a powerful instinct to cooperate in groups. This dialectic balance between cooperation and competition, between cooperation in groups and individual competition, (both between individuals within groups, and between individual groups), is a large part of what has made our species dominant over Earth.
How can this be accomplished? What system provides for the expression of the best qualities in Human Nature, and also protects the 'rights' of ALL, (to share equitably in the wealth that society produces), from the worst qualities in Human Nature?
When the workers in Brazil (or anywhere) take over the factories, some of them are going to have to continue at the drudgery of work, (they are going to have to continue to run the machines), while others are going to begin to spend time sitting in offices 'managing' the operation. Though working people who move into management hold in mind the reality of the interests of workers, (because they directly remember their own experiences as workers), over time that memory fades, and by the next generation, there is no memory at all. A Management Class inevitably forms, in direct collusion with the state under Socialism, or with investors (Capital) under Capitalism. The Management Class is made up of people who never themselves have worked at the machines. (This inevitable human dynamic is exactly what we have seen happen within our unions. Andrew Stern, an ivy league educated child of the middle class, has never pushed a broom, or tried to feed a family on a janitor's $9 an hour. When was the last time McCarron ever swung a hammer?)
So the nexus always comes down to how does each group, (or each individual within each group), protect its (or his or her) own interests in the 'operation' of the enterprise, (or in the 'union', or in the 'society')? In the end, this question becomes, How is Democracy manifest within the operation? Under either system, under either Capitalism, or under Socialism, the most important determinant factor for the benefits of the common working citizens of the society, is Democracy.
Corporations themselves are not inherently 'bad'. Corporations are not 'immoral', they are 'amoral'. They pursue profit with no more moral concern than a shark pursues meat. Some kind of 'corporation', (which literally means simply 'embodiment'), must exist. Whether the 'state' embodies Capital, or whether individual investors embody Capital, the crux of the problem remains how to administer the authority to control how Capital is applied, and how the value created by production is divvied up. How is the 'operation', whether we call it the 'company', the 'corporation', or the 'state', going to delegate authority to make these decisions, and to whom, (and through what process), is that authority going to be responsible and accountable?
Democracy is an agreement to share power equally AND equitably among every 'citizen' of the group. Democracy is the only alternative to domination by one small group, (or sometimes, (distressingly often), even in Socialist systems, by one single individual), that holds all the power. Democracy attempts to give equal power to each individual, to each 'citizen'. Inevitably, power MUST be delegated to an authority structure for the collective to function, so the question becomes, how is that authority structure held democratically accountable to the 'citizens' of the collective? In a Democracy, ALL authority emanates from, and is accountable to, the citizens. Only Democracy defines inalienable human and economic 'rights' for 'citizens'. Both Socialism and Capitalism are highly prone to the abrogation of all power and authority in the hands of a privileged few, with the 'rights' of citizens highly suppressed, (if they exist at all).
Our current Capitalist system of Management and Labor is set up by its very structure as an adversarial system. Management is in no way accountable to Labor. Workers are not 'citizens' of companies. Workers have no inherent 'rights' in companies. Management is under the absolute authority of ownership, in a direct military, or 'chain of command' structure. Individual people, whether Management or Labor, have no specific 'rights' within this structure, except those defined by their rank and position within the chain of command. The 'rank and file', (meaning those at the bottom, those who have no 'rank', no authority at all), have no 'rights' at all.
Labor is thereby forced to protect its own interests by developing its independent adversarial power to control, or even stop, production, which it uses for leverage to extend and enforce its 'rights' to Collective Bargaining.
Under Capitalism, Labor has no more 'rights' than those for which it is willing to fight. (Is this not as true in communist China, and was it not as true in the Socialist Soviet 'Republic', as it is under Capitalism?) The relationship between Management and Labor, lacking a clearly established process of democratic authority, and clear lines of democratic accountability, is inherently an adversarial relationship. Management, which under Capitalism works for owners, (and are often owners themselves), do not recognize 'Collective Bargaining' as an inalienable 'right' at all. If it is left up to them, they will eradicate Collective Bargaining completely. Management can maximize profits best, (which is the only imperative of Capital, for whom Management works), when it has absolute power over Labor. (How are labor unions, and the 'rights' of individual workers, regarded in communist China? North Korea? How were the rights of workers 'protected' in the Soviet Union?)
All this talk of a 'partnership' between Management and Labor, of a 'cooperative' system, where Management and Labor regard themselves as allies in the operation of the enterprise, but lacking any specific and well-defined provision of Management accountability to Labor, is patently absurd. (And, lacking democratic accountability, it is EQUALLY as absurd under a Socialist system as under a Capitalist system). The key determinant to an equitable division of wealth produced by the society as a whole is the DEMOCRATIC accountability of all authority, at every level of organization, and NOT whether the state or private investors provide the capital investment that underlies the enterprise.
This absurd propaganda, being put out now by Big Labor, (by people like Stern, and all the other engorged Fat Cats of Big Labor, in collusion with Big Money) is a sucker's game that tries to play working people for complete fools. "Trust us guys, we're your friends. Management and labor should be one big happy family". Do they really think that we're that stupid? (Families don't throw their members out in the alley when times are tough, the way that companies, (with union collusion), cast aside workers).
Yes, folks. They really DO think that we're this stupid. 'They', both Big Money, and now Big Labor, (under blatantly anti-democratic union corporatists like Stern), think that they can fool most of the people, most of the time. They really DO think that this unholy collusion of Big Labor with Big Money can run this massive PR ploy and make it work. They think that workers making $12 per hour, (let alone those living in the abject misery of minimum wage poverty), workers who have to choose between paying rent, buying medicine for our illnesses, or shoes for our kids, (because we can't pay for all these things on $12), are so stupid that we're going to thank our 'wise masters', both our Fat Cat 'champions' within Big Labor like Stern, who are living the extravagant 'good life' on the exorbitant salaries they take from our paychecks, and the managers of our corporations (who are paying themselves bonuses of millions of dollars per year), for administering this grand 'partnership' for us.
All these same dynamics take place at every level of organization within this structure of organized human economies. When Management is no longer directly and democratically accountable to Labor, (whether we are talking about Capitalist management, trade union management, or state management in Socialist societies), our basic and immutable Human Nature commands that the interests of Management and Labor will diverge. Capitalism v. Socialism is NOT the relevant issue. DEMOCRACY is the issue. Lacking democratic accountability, (when authority is no longer rooted in the citizenry, when the authority in the society is not derived from the clearly expressed 'consent of the governed'), neither Capitalism nor Socialism, (nor any other 'ism'), can prevent the exploitation of Labor by Management.
This is what we see happening now in our own unions. Labor's 'management', which has been wrested from the democratic control of union members by Big Labor's corrupt, and blatantly (and aggresively) anti-democratic Fat Cats, wants workers to be just as 'stupid', (just as compliant), as does Capital's Management.
The great champion of janitors and maids, SEIU's Andrew Stern, asks us to believe that he will protect the interests of people who earn between minimum wage and around $10 to $12 per hour, while he pulls down nearly a grand ($1000) a day, (nearly $5,000 per week), PLUS a generous expense count of another $500 or so per week, (which ALONE is over $12 per hour, more than most of SEIU's membership earns). McCarron makes what, $369,000, or about $1420 per DAY, plus a generous expense account? Do any of us really think that either of these guys, or any other imperfect and fallible human being making that kind of money, has anything at all in common with a guy swinging a hammer out in the hot sun in July, or out in the cold north wind in January? Do any of us think that these engorged Fat Cats have anything at all in common with a worker, whether a janitor, a carpenter, or a machinist, who has little or no job security, (i.e.: security for the health and safety of his family), makes just barely enough to keep a modest roof over her or his kids' heads, and lives check to check, only an accident, illness, or injury away from complete financial ruin and poverty for her or his family?
These guys, Big Money in collusion with Big Labor, want us to believe that they are out for US, that they will protect our interests. But they hold themselves completely above, and completely out of the reach, of our democratic 'authority'. We have no say-so whatsoever in the decisions they make. We have no 'rights' within these power structures.
Thomas Jefferson defined Democracy, in the Declaration of Independence, as the 'consent of the governed'. Clearly, we, (meaning "the people who work", as Brother Mirabito calls us), have no way to either give, or withhold, our 'consent to be governed' by Management, ("those who don't work"), in whatever manner that they, (meaning those who manage our companies and our unions), see fit. They ask us to believe that they will be 'fair' and 'equitable' in the division they make of the wealth our labor produces, but we can clearly see that Management, including the management of our unions, just continually grows fatter and more engorged, while Labor, 'those who work', grows poorer, less healthy, and less secure.
They ask us to believe that they will represent our interests out of the pure goodness of their hearts alone, (god bless their little hearts anyway), while we can all CLEARLY see that they go to GREAT lengths to PREVENT us from having any democratic say-so at ALL in what they do, or in the decisions they impose upon our lives, (and upon our children and families).
Many of us may have been born at night, but it sure as hell wasn't last night. We will not find economic justice for "those who work" until or unless we have democratic 'rights' and power through which we can effect the decisions that govern the division of wealth. This is as true under Socialism, it is as true in trade unions, it is as true in government, as it is in Capitalist Corporations. Democracy is the issue than defines 'progressivism', and Democracy is most certainly the issue that defines Progressive Labor.
'Our Process, (Democracy), Is Our Most Important Policy'
(enough 'droning' for today)
Zwarich
No comments:
Post a Comment