Are workers' rights up for debate in the Labour and Consumption forum?

Unionist wrote:

I see this occur every day - in the MSM, in the streets, in the workplaces. On babble, I don't want to see that particular debate. I want to see workers' rights taken for granted - God-given - unassailable - and then babblers considering, together, how to expand and defend those rights against the kinds of attacks that should come only from the outside.

I should think you'd be used to the babble culture by now.

This is a place where every second thread about Cuba requires rehearsing a debate over whether the Batista regime was better than the Castro one; where every second thread about climate change requires debating all over again whether human economic activity is causing global warming; where every second thread about Quebec nationalism requires debating the rights of poor oppressed anglophones.

Right-wing political viewpoints are welcome in the new elbbab, as long as they are expressed politely. 

triciamarie has a very pertinent question to ask:

Crickets.

Okay, so it appears what we have here is a refusal to respect the contract governing our conditions of employment, ie in writing free content for Rabble.

Sisters and Brothers, what is our course of action?

Sorry, I didn't see this until today.  It would be nice if you'd give me the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming I was ignoring it.  I just didn't notice this on TAT yesterday (I was sick most of the day with a migraine and not online much until the afternoon) or on Saturday when it was created and last on TAT (I was out of town for the weekend.)

Honestly, I think a lot of things get hashed out on babble in all the forums that I've already got a perfect opinion about, and I certainly wish everyone else would get with the program on them. 

The feminism forum was full of it.  Certainly the anti-racism forum is, and you'll find that some of the people who complain about the rules being not strict enough for the Labour forum also complain when they're called on comments they make in the AR or aboriginal issues forum.  Ask Maysie or Makwa sometime about the way they have to grit their teeth and deal with so much ignorance of the basics in those forums.

You know why?  Because none of us is "there yet" on every issue.  Some of us are stronger on some issues than others.  And there are some issues that society in general is stronger on than others.  That's why we're here, right?  To learn through discussion and debate.

You know why I posted that article in the Labour and Consumption forum?  Because it was on the front page of rabble, and I wanted to see what babblers would have to say about it.  Because I personally disagreed with the article, and I wanted to see our resident labour experts on babble debunk the arguments made.  Do you honestly think I can ban people from putting forth the exact same opinion that appeared on the front page of our web site?  

Because there are ALWAYS going to be some issues that "the left" or "progressive people" (or whatever you want to call the portion of the population who holds generally left-wing political views) "get" more than other issues.  And honestly, right now I think this issue of turning certain public sector workers into "essential workers" is one that people on the left struggle with right now.  No, not people who are union activists and have been all their lives.  Just like anti-racist activists like Maysie don't struggle with AR issues that, frankly, most babblers do. 

But in a society where even the most left-wing political party goes along with legislating transit strikers back to work, I honestly DO think it's important for a place like this to be full of arguments about why that is wrong, and why essential services legislation, which, by the way, sounds good to a lot of people who are left-leaning but not overly informed on labour issues, is wrong.

The media, and even left-wing politicians, argue every day that forcing arbitration on workers means they get more lucrative contracts, that the rank-and-file want to be essential workers, and blah blah blah.  Sure, it's bullshit, I agree. 

On issues where there is a general left consensus except for a few malcontents, I would consider it to be out of bounds and trolling to argue against it.  But on this issue, I just don't see the consensus yet, which is why I think it's important for rabble to be a place where we debunk the arguments that, unfortunately, sound reasonable to certain segments of progressive people.

Thank you for your response.

I understand what you're saying. You believe there is not a consensus on the left regarding workers' right to strike, as evidenced by the anti-worker piece on Rabble. You want babble to be a place where we can discuss the right to strike so that people will understand it better and give workers more support. Similarly, you suggest Makwa and Maysie are also frequently in the position of having to deal with ignorance, because unfortunately most babblers are not as evolved as we should be on the issues that they moderate. Our opinions are not all perfect.

The problem I have is that in this case, it was you, a moderator, who first put up the Rabble article for discussion on babble, without further comment, and then defended the decision by saying that workers' basic rights should be open for discussion and this will help us come to terms with them. Frankly, I can't imagine Makwa or Maysie basing a thread on an overtly racist or sexist article in order to stimulate discussion. Even non-moderators doing so would be corrected, because babblers recognize that making the opposite arguments to those that we wish to support is not a helpful or respectful way to progress our mutual understanding. When this happens it is at the moderators' discretion whether or not to take the time to explain why the OP sets an inappropriate tone for discussion; in some cases it is not considered worthy of a response, and the thread is simply closed and not infrequently, the babbler is banned.

In this case, the anti-worker commentary originated on Rabble's front page. That probably takes away the more extreme sanctions that otherwise could be considered. It makes it difficult to say that we can't have a legitimate discussion about the contents of that article. But, no one is saying that we can't discuss transit workers' right to strike or the effect of withdrawing public services. The point is that we must insist on discussing the issue from a perspective that supports the basic rights that workers in Canada and around the world have fought and paid for with our jobs, our bodies and our lives over the past hundred years or more.

Asking babblers to debate the issue from the ground up, no holds barred, in a media and political environment that attacks those rights daily, is profoundly offensive to workers and it is a flagrant violation of babble policy.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Workers' Rights dont involve the appropriation of another culture's struggle.

What does that mean?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

RevolutionPlease wrote:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/should-transit-be-essential-service

Ah, gotcha.  Thanks.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

(Tangent removed.)

I don't know, al-Qa'bong.  But I've heard the same thing from babblers who are strong on anti-racism issues about posts by you and Unionist and others (including me), that they can't believe that babble, of all places, would have to struggle with such basic anti-racist (and in your case, feminist) issues.  And strangely enough, you both tend to dismiss their concerns with comtempt and hostility.  And yet you both scream bloody murder when people don't immediately jump to recognize your absolute authority on issues where you're stronger than they are.

So, is this about sides?  Or is it about learning from each other on issues where we're maybe a little weaker, and teaching each other on issues where we're strong?

Unionist, when I said "ban people from putting forth the same argument," I didn't mean ban their accounts, I meant forbid them to post such arguments.  Sorry I was unclear.

And actually, the left-wing politicians I was thinking of who claim that arbitrated settlements give workers more lucrative contracts were Adam Giambrone and David Miller during the last TTC strike that lasted overnight when people in Toronto reacted by screaming for it to be made an essential service.  No, I don't have links, I don't have time to look for them but we discussed it here at the time. 

And guess what?  Both of them, AND the provincial NDP supported legislating the TTC back to work.  And no, I don't have links for that either.  Don't have time to look for them. 

The funny thing is, I completely agree with you that it's a crying shame that there are left-leaning people out there who think essential services legislation for public services like transit is a good idea.  I AM a public sector worker.  I'm a unionized university worker, and I know damn well that I'll get no sympathy whatsoever if my local ever needs to strike, and I know damn well that I'll be legislated back to work eventually if we hold out long enough, just like the York workers were, and I know damn well that people will be screaming to either fire us all, break the big bad union, or declare us essential services because education is a right.

That's why I posted that thread.  Because honestly?  I wanted to see babblers take those arguments from that column down.  I know that, as a public sector worker, we have to actually change minds, not just shoot out emotional ketchup bursts whenever people (especially people who are supposed to be on our side) challenge our right to strike.

Maybe I didn't handle it as well as I should have, but it's done now, the thread is closed, and don't worry - I won't be starting another one, no matter what!  :) 

I guess when you say stuff like this:

Quote:

Any other view of this situation is delusional. Slaves have no leverage except for rebellion.

It makes me think that there is more information on it than you are willing to provide, and in my own ignorance of labour relations (which is why I am seeking information) I can't tell if you're telling the whole story or it's just an ideological position.

 

Unionist wrote:

Michelle wrote:

But I've heard the same thing from babblers who are strong on anti-racism issues about posts by you and Unionist and others (including me), that they can't believe that babble, of all places, would have to struggle with such basic anti-racist (and in your case, feminist) issues.  And strangely enough, you both tend to dismiss their concerns with comtempt and hostility.

That's an amazing statement, Michelle. Either provide one single example of what you're talking about, or retract it. That's just bloody defamatory. Have you had occasion to caution me in the AR forum? Or suspend me? Or are you talking about some slip-up that I apologized for?

Example, please, or retraction. Thanks in advance.

ETA: While we're at it:

oldgoat wrote:

Having said all that, Unionist, I think there are many aspects of the Anti-racism and Oppression realm to which you are totally tone deaf, and in that I understand and agree with Makwa's arguments.

Example, or retraction. Or, just let all this sit hanging, that you consider some people to be racist.

Are you talking about my reply to Makwa in that thread? What exactly are you talking about?

 

 

You don't hold the right anti-racist [i]theory[/i], unionist. That's enough to damn you. And that's the crucial difference: no one has ever suggested, in the labour forum, that someone is 'anti-worker' or doesn't 'get it' or some such thing because they don't adhere to the correct [i]theory[/i]: because they are not a social democrat, a marxist, a syndicalist, or whatever. 

 

You have no idea what I have or have not experienced.

Every human experience or act has a theoretical dimension. "Theory" affects the way a person experiences oppression and the way she talks about it and the way she evaluates what others say about it. There are different feminist theories, different anti-colonialist theories, different anti-racist theories, etc. 

Unionist wrote:

This thread is about whether workers' rights are debatable in the Labour and Consumption forum. It was opened long before the provocation started in that thread about comparing people to racists. I'd rather not see this discussion go down that same drain, please.

 

No, neither would I. It's utterly pointless. But once in awhile, I can't stop myself. My apologies. I should be able to shut up about this now for another year or so. Back to the topic.  

Quote:

(and in your case, feminist) issues.

I'll never live down starting the "Guy stuff" threads, I guess.

If you can point out anywhere where I've suggested that women shouldn't be treated the same as males in the workplace, or anywhere else, I'd like to see it.

Unionist wrote:

  This thread is about whether workers' rights are debatable in the Labour and Consumption forum. It was opened long before the provocation started in that thread about comparing people to racists. I'd rather not see this discussion go down that same drain, please.

I would have preferred it as well, but as I recall, you did set the swirl in motion with the comparison of debating workers rights with debating racialized experiences.  I thought it was a mistake to parallel two separate issues, just as I thought having the article on Rabble's homepage was.  I don't see it's introduction for discussion in the Labour and Consumption forum in the same light, as the OP appeared to intend that the views expressed in the article be deconstructed, as opposed to having it bandied about with pro or con deliberation.  As I said before, it is quite different than presenting anti-worker ideology by using the disadvantaged as a prop for an argument that has no legitimacy.  I believe it remained a valuable and insightful exercise, up to the point where the original purpose of the thread was entirely lost among the jostling, between the experts and those who are obviously not, but someday might aspire to be.

I believe I was a bit reactionary last night and have apologized to Unionist.  This is a difficult conundrum when you firmly believe in both issues.  This is possibly where some of us allies could learn to communicate better.  I'm admittedly still learning.  Having slept on it I view it as a distraction.  Especially in light of how the anti-worker posting was going and the use of that.  My reactionary analysis was workers don't need to use slavery as an argument but this morning I'm not so sure.  Is the use of South-African apartheid to support Palestinian struggles different?  Anyways, I'm going to keep pondering it today. 

 

And I agree with Unionist, perhaps the meta-issue should be discussed in another thread and this one can get back to why we're having to defend workers on babble.  It should be a 101 issue on here and then perhaps discussions don't get heated and we wouldn't have to go there.  I now see the connection Unionist was putting forth with respect to workers being "better off" with the essential service tag.

 

Just 2 cents from one who is struggling with the issues from a largely ignorant position as I'm in neither group but support both 100%.

Unionist wrote:

This thread is about whether workers' rights are debatable in the Labour and Consumption forum. It was opened long before the provocation started in that thread about comparing people to racists. I'd rather not see this discussion go down that same drain, please.

You must be referring to another thread.  The provocation I saw was in the appropriation of historical African-American antebellum life and death struggles to your peeve about what can be reasonably discussed as the demarcation of 'essential services' in the relatively secure contemporary Canadian public sector. 

Unionist wrote:

I said it was out of bounds to discuss whether workers are "better off" when stripped of their democratic rights, just as it is out of bounds to discuss whether slaves are "better off" before they emancipated.

Merely to assert that arguments are comparable because one disagrees with both is absurd. Were I to assert that any position I disagree with is automatically as wrong as the Nazi Holocaust because I did not agree with Hitler, I would be rightly laughed off the board.  

Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.

Unionist wrote:

A very good summary as to why you are not ready to post in the Labour and Consumption forum. Perhaps consider lurking for awhile, maybe asking some questions offline.

I agree. I was about to suggest that Makwa be told to stay out of the labour and consumption forum in view of his hostility to labour movement and evident unfamiliarity with its history and traditions.

For the last 200 years radicalized workers of all racial identities have compared their oppression under capitalism to the oppression of slaves.

Striking women textile workers in Lowell, Massachusetts in 1836 sang this song:

Oh! isn't it a pity, such a pretty girl as I

Should be sent to the factory to pine away and die?

Oh! I cannot be a slave, I will not be a slave,

For I'm so fond of liberty,

That I cannot be a slave.

The description of the plight of the worker under capitalism as "wage slavery" is of old and honourable vintage on this continent. Malcolm X once said that after the Emancipation Proclamation "the system of slavery changed from chattel slavery to wage slavery". "America preaches freedom," he said of life in 1960s America, "and practices slavery."

Every Martin Luther King Day the IWW (yes, it still exists) holds a "March Against Wage Slavery".

In his book [i]Understanding Power[/i], Noam Chomsky discusses the origins of the U.S. working class and the early days of its struggle:

Quote:

Right through the 19th century, working people in the US were struggling against the imposition of what they described as "degradation", "oppression", "wage slavery", "taking away our elementary rights", "turning us into tools of production", everything that we now call modern capitalism...

And as Chomsky notes elsewhere, "wage slavery is not very different from chattel slavery... there's not much difference between selling yourself and renting yourself."

The similarities between wage labour and chattel slavery have often been the subject of serious theoretical, as well as rhetorical, discourse. The British feminist writer Carol Pateman, for example, in her book [i]The Sexual Contract[/i] writes:

Quote:

In short, the contract in which the worker sells his labour power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. To obtain the right to the use of another is to be a (civil) master. To sell command over the use of oneself for a specified period is not the same as selling oneself for life as another's property - but it is to be an unfree labourer. The characteristics of this condition are captured in the term wage slave. [p. 151]

So I can only ascribe to ignorance any claims that such comparisons are "reprehensible" or that they reflect "white privilege".

Whew, where to begin.

First off, I do not believe in essential service job positions, period, full stop. None, nadda, and there is no way in hell it should have ever been allowed in the first place, for any job position.

Having been a unionized "essential service",  I have experienced first hand the outcome of that. And have viewed the secondary results thereof, which I am not going to get into in this thread and will stick to the primary effects of; wages clawed back, extended benefits and dental plans gutted, pension plans shunted, contract negotiations deferred and deferred and deferred, and poor working conditions.  Why did that happen? Because, if we walked off, it would have been jail time, or fines, so we had to put up or shut up. It enables the employer to do what they want and nothing more.

Secondly, workers right to strike should never ever have been questioned, nor dismissed either in Rabble/babble at large, and especially not in the labour and consumption forum.

In fact, given the anti-union article was on the front page of babble, and in conflict with the rules of rabble even, I would hope that the unions subsidizing rabble think strongly about any continued funding, if such a thing was to continue, or happen again. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh?! They may as well put their money into the msm media, at least there they would get wider PR, while being slammed on the other side.

Thirdly, when employers start to refer to the workforce as "human capital", they also start to treat them as such, which we are seeing more and more of these days. Dehumanization  commences on its slippery slide downhill to abject exploitation in the fullest sense. I mean afterall, before worker's rights and our broken form of democracy, what were our ALL ancestors, for those of us who do not come from inherited wealth that is?

I am not going to get into a meta dialogue here whys of worker's rights and what it means if workers do not have them, because really people here should be smart enough to realize what NOT having workers rights means, in the fullest extent. And I simply cannot believe such commentary against workers rights happened here. Nor am I going to address how transit riders should be taking matters into their own hands and become a collective to launch action agaisnt the transit service providers, as opposed to wanting to take away the bus driver's rights.

Moreover, I fully expect the abortion debate to happen here sometime soon, under some auspices, or another, given this occurence.

 

Edited because I had 2 secondlies

jas wrote:

I still maintain that it is quite a different thing to be able to walk away from a job and not be shot, or hunted down and lynched, than it is to walk away from real captivity at the risk of your life.

The use of 'slavery' in the term 'wage slavery' is rhetorical, not the reality, except in cases where perhaps exist in special economic zones, third world factories or work camps where it may be true that foremen actually carry guns. Haven't actually heard of this, but wouldn't be surprised.

I am speaking about labour conditions in Canada where the crews bosses actually regularly brought their guns with them, obstensibly to hunt game, but obviously to intimidate Native workers. They also did this in the camp, and indeed fired them off once and a while, just to let everyone know that they functioned.

What is happening here is that the powers that be are loosely defining what the terms of an "essential service" is in order to erradicate the right to strike. If transit is an essential service, then so are teachers. Recently the government of Ontario closed down a strike by university TA's.

 If the government can force TA's back to work, then they can do that to any union. What happens when OSSTF decides to strike.

Sorry, the right to strike, is the foundation upon which all the privileges of unionized workers rests, and in fact what they were built upon. These standards extend far beyone simply unionized workers, but indeed impact the working conditions of ALL workers, wether they are in a union or not.

 

Ok, lovely.  

1. Until informed by the mods of the labour forum, I shall continue to post what I wish, thank you. Please feel free to contact the moderators to request my expulsion at any time.

2. I have read my fill of Marx, and other marxist writers, thank you, and am familiar with the absurd concept of 'wage slavery.'  I thought it was a concept worthy of ridicule then, and nothing in the intervening years has come about to change my mind.

3. Anyone, including Chomsky, who feels comfortable in comparing contemporary legal wage employment with Antebellum enslavement, is deluded and sadly insensitive to the racist underpinnings of such comparisons.  

4. I have worked as a unionized employee for over twenty years, have participated enthusiastically in a number of strikes, and was raised in a unionized employment supported family, and am familiar with many aspects of labour history.

5. I make no apologies for having a critical view of typical union hyperbole and ideology, while remaining a supporter of union issues.

6. I have no interest in the content of dusty old union songs or slogans, and absolutely loath Jack London.

And that, my friends, is the rest of the story. 

**** 

Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.