European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Breaking the power of the "Economic Royalists"

by JakeS
Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:07:10 AM EST

- Or "Workers of the World, Unite!, take two"

In a recent diary, NBBooks coined/presented the challenge of 'breaking the power of the Economic Royalists.' I'd like to take him up on that challenge.

From what I gather from reading here and elsewhere, there are three principal prongs to the power of the Economic Royalists:

The rich, it is argued, cannot be taxed directly, because the rich can move abroad.
Capital, it is argued, cannot be taxed (and thus the rich cannot be taxed indirectly either), because capital can move abroad with even greater ease than people.
Wages, we are told, must be kept low, because rising wages make countries less competitive (the underlying assumption being that rising wages translate into rising end cost of the product, rather than to lower profits - because the capital can move to where the profit is highest.

The attempts to reduce these three advantages that the capitalists hold over the proletariat - to use an oldish turn of phrase - have to a great extent focused on reducing the mobility of people, capital and goods, respectively. People being largely immobile (even the rich, making the first of the three neo-lib arguments a little less than convincing), the main progressive focus has been on restricting the global movement of capital - by attempting to put a crimp on scams like transfer pricing, restricting the movement of goods - by attempting boycotts of goods produced under sufficiently horrendous working conditions, or both - by old-fashioned protectionism.

But such efforts have been largely unsuccessful. I think this is due to the fact that the efforts have been aimed at raising artificial legal barriers to an increased flow of goods and capital that is to a large extent the result of technological developments and improvements in the global infrastructure. Below the fold I shall argue that these conditions are, in fact, a more or less overt return to the bad old days of the 19th century. I shall also argue that those who wish to oppose them would be wise to look to the ways in which similar conditions were successfully opposed during that era.

Looking at each of the three points of leverage claimed by modern global capital, we find them reflected in the political and technological developments of the 19th century:

The rich were largely untaxed. Back in the bad old days, this was because the rich controlled the political process. Which might still apply today, for that matter. There wasn't, if I recall my history classes correctly, any real structural reason why the rich weren't taxed. But a lot of the supply-side BS we hear today was first said during the industrial revolution (and almost word-for-word to boot).
Capital was largely untaxed, for many of the same reasons that the rich were untaxed. Political reasons, mainly. This is a difference between the industrial revolution and today, as capital can now move with much greater ease, thus evading taxation by fleeing to tax havens. This is a point of difference to be kept in mind during further analysis and hopefully addressed later.
Wages were kept low by the fact that goods and capital moved with greater ease than workers. If one factory increased wages, it would either have to increase the prices of its end product, thus being squeezed in the competition with other factories due to the easy movement of goods, or accept lower profit margins, thus getting squeezed in the competition for capital with which to expand the operation. Sound familiar?

The first and last of these three issues are very similar if, in the last point, we substitute 'country' for 'factory.' So how were these advantages that capital held over labour dealt with in the 19th century?

In large part by labour organizing. By organizing in labour unions and therefrom-derived political blocs, labour could force political change, either through the democratic process or through force of arms. Even in the most despotic regime imaginable, a majority group of the population has political clout if it is sufficiently organized, sufficiently disciplined and sufficiently pissed off.

Progressive income tax increased the taxation of the rich. This was and is a purely political decision; all the structural arguments against this move were and are bovine manure.
Taxation on capital and capital gains was a political decision then. Today this is complicated by the ability of capital to easily cross the borders of legislative jurisdiction.
Wages could be increased by collective bargaining. The greater mobility of capital relative to labour does not matter one whit if labour is united in its demands.

A historical detour - the nature and power of strikes

Strikes, a potent weapon in the arsenal of organized labour, rest on the ability and willingness of labourers in one sector, company or - in modern times - country to support striking labourers in another sector/company/country. Labourers can rarely stash enough money to comfortably cover their own paychecks for more than a few weeks - a month on the outside. The labour unions of yestercentury realized this, and thus was born the "strike screw:"[1]

The idea is that the labourers of companies A, B, C and D unionize in the same labour union. The employees in company A then go on strike, while the employees in companies B, C and D continue to go to work as normal, but each pay roughly a quarter of their wages to the striking employees of company A (assuming, of course, that all companies have the same number of employees).

If a sufficiently large number of labourers are organizing in this fashion, and spread across a sufficiently large number of companies, this strategy ensures that the strikebound company will endure horrendous losses, while the individual labourer will endure only marginal losses, which can be recouped through higher post-strike wages. Further, since other labourers essentially sponsor the strikers when their pay is cut and/or they are fired as a result of the strike the strike can go on for as long as is required. When company A finally relents, the workers of company B go on strike, and the process is repeated with all applicable companies - that part is called the turning of the screw. [2]

What this strategy essentially does is use the mobility of capital against the capitalists! The advantage of using this approach in the modern context of free-flowing capital should be obvious: It outright negates the principal advantage that capitalists enjoy as a result of the increasing global mobility of capital.

End of historical detour

What I think must happen if we are to avert a painful return to the 19th century way of doing business (or, in the cases of developing countries, shorten the transition from the 19th century way of doing business to the post-19th century way) is to organize labour across national boundaries. We already have multi-national corporations. It's time for multi-national labour unions.

And by multi-national labour unions, I do not think merely of the already-existing umbrella organizations. I think about fully integrated bodies that are capable of carrying out simultaneous strikes against an entire multi-national corporation everywhere on the globe. Or capable of globally blocking production in an entire industry at a time. Or, for that matter, paralyze entire countries for arbitrary lengths of time and in a coordinated fashion.

Truly globally organized labour could thus take care of the third prong of the Economic Royalists' class warfare by presenting a unified front against the common class enemy.

Apart from strikes, the other powerful tool historically available to organized labour was, as mentioned, political organization and solidarity. In a modern context, political solidarity means engineering a trans-national equivalent of political parties, crafted in such a fashion as to prevent short-sighted selling-out of global labour interests in order to gain local advantage.

Such political solidarity should, for instance, result in Irish labour parties fighting tooth and nail against the lowered corporate tax rates that have been used in recent decades to boost the Irish economy, because even though it might benefit Ireland it will surely hurt global labour interests - and in the end, it will hurt local labour interests, because other countries can and will retaliate using precisely the same short-sighted policies.

Further, international political solidarity would work to eliminate the last advantage on the list: The ability of capital to evade taxation by moving to tax havens. A multi-national company can alternately bribe and pressure a small country to provide a flag of convenience for it, by virtue of having a yearly turnover several times the minor country's government budget and being able to do Bad Things to the country, such as aggressively speculating in the local currency, or buying out and liquidating local industry. So far the multinational companies have been the only ones with that ability, but there is no reason that multinational labour unions would not have the same capabilities.

And combined with international political organization international labour could put tremendous pressure on a flag of convenience country to be a bit less convenient. Sovereign governments have a plethora of exceedingly nasty ways to make their displeasure with other sovereign governments known - from denying their citizens visas, through protectionism and diplomatic isolation and all the way to outright embargo. And that's even without touching the more - ah - traditional kinds of gunboat diplomacy.

- Jake

[1] Strejkeskruen in Danish - my dictionary does not list that word, so I had to improvise a translation. An etymological curiosity is that the Danish word for 'blackleg' is 'skruebrækker' - lit. 'one who breaks the screw.'

[2] The employers can, of course, retaliate by organizing themselves and employing collective lockouts, but once they take that step, they have de facto accepted collective bargaining, which is ultimately to the advantage of the employed.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll

Votes: 14
Results	\|	Other Polls

Breaking the power of the "Economic Royalists" | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Very good ideas - need to spread them (none / 1)

Very good ideas. Have you thought of posting it to some of the labor union blogs? All the economics academicians who see financialization as a problem point to the assault on and weakening of the labor unions as a primary causal or enabling factor.

I have not given a lot of thought to organizing labor as a solution, but I think clearly an international union able to effectively confront a multi-national corporation all over the world would be a very progressive development.

Most of my efforts right now are into getting people to realize that the financial crash is going to radically alter the political realities, opening up many new opportunities we must seize and use. Most of my thinking so far has been along the lines suggested by a former AFL-CIO economist has suggested some regulatory moves to reign in derivatives, for example:
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_151-200/WP153.pdf

by NBBooks on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:53:54 AM EST

Re: Very good ideas - need to spread them (none / 0)

Very good ideas. Have you thought of posting it to some of the labor union blogs?

Now I have :-P

Problem is, I don't know any labour union blogs.

The paper you linked looks interesting, but I'm too bleary-eyed with fatigue at the moment to give it the reading it deserves... I won't promise to 'get back to it,' because I seem to have developed a backlog of such promises lately :-P But I might.

National regulatory solutions are probably necessary and useful in the short term, because organising something on the sheer scale of the unions I'm imagining. But I think that in the long term, labour has to be organised on the same scale that the labour market is. Anything else seems like a stop-gap measure to me.

If that is indeed true, then we have to start organising now! Or yesterday, preferably.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:18:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very good ideas - need to spread them (4.00 / 3)

Now I have :-P
Problem is, I don't know any labour union blogs.

Working Life run by Jonathan Tasini and the Labor Research Association.

There have been preliminary moves in this direction. The first round involved European and North American unions Amicus (UK) IG Metall (DE) and Steelworker's and Machinists (US)

The move, to be announced this week, is seen by union leaders as the first step towards creating a single union that can present a united front to multinational companies.
Derek Simpson, general secretary of Amicus, said: 'Our aim is to create a powerful single union that can transcend borders to challenge the global forces of capital. I envisage a functioning, if loosely federal, multinational organisation within the next decade.'
Amicus is itself planning to merge with the Transport & General Workers' Union in May to create a 2 million-strong labour organisation. Between IG-Metall's 2.4 million members, the USW's 1.2 million and 730,000 at the Machinists', a merger would create an organisation with some 6.3 million members.

Up until the 1980's the United AutoWorkers (UAW) represented workers in both the US and Canada, but the Canadians split off wanting to take a harder line. Because there's government healthcare in Canada, they were able to get new contracts that transferred jobs out of the US because Canadian labor costs (wages + benefits) were lower than in the US.

This has changed with the last contract, so that US labor costs are lower, and will likely result in a long, and pointless strike by the CAW (Canadian Autoworkers) in their 2008 negotiations. Many plants that are north of the border will likely be transferred back into the US to take advantage of the health care fix negotiated in the contract and the weakening US dollar relative to the looney.

In May of 2007, the UAW hosted autoworker's unions from 7 nations in the first of what will hopefully become a series of international labor strategy meetings.

"My biggest fear is that if we don't do something to develop a global strategy, then workers around the world will become less and less relevant to the process," said UAW Vice President Terry Thurman, who directs the union's National Organizing Department and led the May 22-24 meeting.
"What do we hope to accomplish? It's really quite simple. We must take direct action, finalize a joint strategy and understand that we cannot take care of our workers without bringing up the rest of the world. We have got to do this," Thurman said.
Hosted by the UAW and the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center, this historic meeting was the first time international trade unions from eight countries, including the United States, had gathered at Solidarity House, the union's headquarters in Detroit, to focus on coordinated organizing strategies.
Unionists from Argentina, Brazil, France, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom participated. (Lekubu Herman Ntlatleng, auto coordinator for the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa, did not attend due to illness.)

If unions were able to negotiate international contracts, the power of mulitnationals to use profits from one country to tide them over from labor action in another country. Even a 60% international union density would have a tremendous impact. Most car companies have 60 days of stock, something like half of which is at parking lots at the plant. In the 2008 GM strike, the UAW president called called the strike on minutes notice. GM wasn't expecting it, and hadn't moved cars off the plant lots, so the only stock that they had was what was on dealer lots, which is a fraction of what's on the plant lots.

The Teamster's refused to cross a picket line to move these cars. The company tried to bring in non-union truckers at night to take the cars out during the strike, strikers were able to block the gates to prevent that from happening. This is a huge part of why this strike lasted for something over a day instead of going on for a month. The UAW is currently out at International Harvester, another auto parts plants. My two cousins there have been out for going on two months. That could have been the GM strike if not for the snap calling of the strike.

It's a different game in other companies. For example in Germany, IG Metall has a much better bargaining position because of the peak associational model, where you have the union on one side of the table, and the employer's association representing most of that industrial sector on the other. They're able to effectively set wages and conditions of work outside the coercion that you have in the market when a companies can play there workers across one another.

Adam Smith's comment about the combinations of masters being no less common than the combinations of servants rings to mind. Because although the working class is often divided, the corporate management shows strong class solidarity whenever there's a strike. Even across borders. The working class needs the same.

We matter more than pounds and pence/ Your economic theory makes no sense "We work the Black Seam"-Sting

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 03:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (4.00 / 2)

Presumably the counter to this sort of trans-national union is nationalism. Imagine the effect of the Murdoch press arguing that not only are union dinosaurs harming the economy, but they are foreign union dinosaurs organising to benefit foreigners.

by Gary J on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:35:09 AM EST

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (4.00 / 2)

That's the wonderful thing about nationalism and racism. You can use it to persuade people who might otherwise join together to hate each other.

Racism will be used as a tool to prevent transnational worker solidarity.

But I think the deeper problem is that the 19th century idea of 'workers' and 'bosses' is simply out-dated now, as are the politics that go with it.

It's much easier to retool the economy along organic lines which make the old problems irrelevant than to engage in another century of confrontational smash and struggle.

I think it's more promising to try to route around capital as an irrelevance than to try to attack it head-on.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:38:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (none / 1)

ThatBritGuy:

Racism will be used as a tool to prevent transnational worker solidarity.

According to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States racism was consciously encouraged in the US in the 19th century in order to break class solidarity.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 07:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (4.00 / 3)

And it's still being used today in the US, which is why 'immigration' remains an issue for the right.

And in Europe too, for that matter, although we're still some way short of seeing its full potential.

It's an irresistible tool - so simple, so reliable, and so effective.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 08:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (4.00 / 2)

Dividing and herding populations according to religious beliefs has proved to be a consistent winner, too.

Always a good preemptive or fall-back measure when average repression doesn't quite do the job.

by Loefing on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (4.00 / 5)

But I think the deeper problem is that the 19th century idea of 'workers' and 'bosses' is simply out-dated now, as are the politics that go with it.

To an extent that's true, of course. One of the great advantages held by corporate leadership today is that they have managed to fragment their employees by employing self-administering teams, creating a layer of sub-leaders who are both boss and worker and specialising tasks to the extent that it's hard to figure out who your 'colleague' is.

Nevertheless I think that it has been amply demonstrated here and elsewhere that the fundamental conflict of interest between the haves and the have-nots still exists, and still very much revolves around wages and working conditions (I include working conditions, because one of the ways to lower wage costs is to pay a very reasonable wage, but demand continually increased productivity - increasing efficiency, as it's called in newspeak, so that you need fewer employees).

An interesting aside is that the fragmentation into self-governing teams and project-oriented working schemes in which the individual employee/team is responsible for his/her/their own project and deadlines can be seen as a way of sneaking piece-rate pay in through the back door - another feature of the Bad Old Days before effective labour unions.

It's much easier to retool the economy along organic lines which make the old problems irrelevant than to engage in another century of confrontational smash and struggle.

I beg to differ.

If we want to bring the trans-nats under control (which I assume we do), we need trans-national tools with which to do it. Since a global government is not in sight, the only tool I can see is to hurt them where they feel it: On their bottom lines. Organised labour is a very effective way of creating leverage in that respect. If you have a less confrontational way of doing it, I'm all ears, but looking at the world today, it very much looks to me like the countries with the strongest labour unions are the countries with the strongest protections for the little guy.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nationalism trumps labour solidarity (none / 0)

Interestingly, semi-autonomous, team-oriented "piece-rate" schemes seem to crop up quite commonly whenever the manufacturing/work process combines a high amount of customized detail work and routine changes in the production model/project. Two examples I am aware of are locomotive manufacture in the 19th century, and modern knitwear production in India. This is often one of the more benign forms of piecework, though, more akin to contracting than than rate abuse.

by Zwackus on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking the power of the (4.00 / 4)

So the Rich are difficult to tax, and Capital is difficult to tax.

Well:

(a) the rich own the majority of land;

(b) land rental values consist of the majority of "Capital."

Solution: tax land rental values.

Henry George got this 150 years ago. The Danes got this, until the current government diluted it.

Taxation of privilege - for which land rental values is the best mechanism - has to be part of the solution.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 09:10:35 AM EST

Global Unions (4.00 / 4)

Time to quote old Léon Walras:

"... workers have an advantage: their number. If they set up, like they do for their unions, their societies and resistance funds, they will succeed, through association, to raise funds at the same level as employers do, or even more. One can say, without exaggerating, they are the strongest. They will never succeed in forcing entrepreneurs to work at loss, but they will compel them to cut down to the normal interest of their capital."

I think about fully integrated bodies that are capable of carrying out simultaneous strikes against an entire multi-national corporation everywhere on the globe. Or capable of globally blocking production in an entire industry at a time.

I totally agree with you. That's the reason why there is hope in the recent (a year ago) creation of the International Trade Union Confederation. It is also the role of Global Unions. They are organising at sectoral level world-wide. A significant number of global agreements have already been signed with multinational corporations through collective bargaining, like this agreement: UNI Telecom : Global agreement signed with France Telecom, or with whole economic sectors, sometimes through the ILO, like the Maritime Labour Convention

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:24:52 PM EST

Re: Global Unions (4.00 / 3)

As we've discussed several times, the 'workers' have always had the numbers, but never before have they had effective means to organize internationally, effectively and rapidly.

Internet and mobile access has the power to change the face of politics - or rather democracy. It will be Google et al, not Hollywood that define the cultural aspirations of the next generations.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

As for the actual organising part, I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself, but I would like to caution against being too enamoured with new and shiny toys. When push comes to shove, there's no substitute for feet on the ground. When you want to block production in a company, there is no substitute for an organised presence within the majority of the company's workforce - not only to organise the strike, but to keep blacklegs out while it's going on.

New media might change democracy. The radio and the TV did in their times. On the other hand, space travel was supposed to change the world too, and didn't.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (4.00 / 2)

Your definition as 'toys' is revealing.

President Estrada of the Phillipines was removed by group SMS. The key is rapidity. The length of time it has taken to organize a mass protest has been a few weeks (and by nature out in the open) - time enough for the government and the poilice or military to organize effective strategies and get men and assets in place.

But if you can get a million people on the streets in a couple of days you will always win - or cause a suicidal reaction of brutal repression. Naturally you cannot get a million people out there if they are not primed and ready. The MSM will not be helping in this task - the new media will.

Facebook had 20 million active users in May 2007 - basically all added since '05. By September it was 58 million - with 50% from outside college. It is doubling every 6 months and it is international. Google has 100 billion monthly page views. Youtube has 16 billion.

Oh yes, you'll say - this Facebook is a just a toy. This is kids looking for new friends and showing off. Yup, 63% of Facebook users are female.

The point you are missing is that Facebook demonstrates how a genuine social need can be rapidly and scaleably satisfied with this toy 'technology'. What is wrong with having more friends?

What is wrong with being pissed off by rich pigs and the ruinous injustice of our system? Facebook is not going to change democracy, but it demonstrates how the technology can tip human needs into a mass 'movement'. One day this new and shiny toy will change everything. IMHO.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 02:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (4.00 / 2)

Not saying that the new media are all - or even mostly - toys. In fact, the use of the term 'toys' was derived from a comparison between some people's infatuation with new media and the ill-fated infatuation of some military types with new weapons (frequently referred to by their critics as 'shiny toys') - both have a use, but over-reliance on them leads to grief. I eventually edited the military comparison out because I figured it would muddy the waters. The 'toys' terminology should probably have gone with it.

Nevertheless, if the new media are to be more than just toys, we need to learn how to use them to get feet on the ground and people to cast ballots. In other words, we must translate virtual power into physical power, because at the end of the day, physical power trumphs virtual power.

I have seen a number of people arguing here and elsewhere that the rise of virtual communities heralds a revolution in the way we do democracy, but without making any but the most rudimentary attempts to translate the virtual community into coordinated action in the 'real world.' That is a trap that we must not fall into. That's all I wanted to point out.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 03:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

OK - I didn't get the shiny toys reference. Apologies.

But I see further than feet on the ground. What the www is doing in the mid-term is cutting out the traditional middlemen. Politicians are middlemen, born of a logistics problem over a millennium ago.

As I've said here before, the most powerful weapon we have now (when we get organized) is Withdrawal of Purchase. It may replace Withdrawal of Labour as a weapon for regulating equality.

If we can get enough people together to agree to stop purchasing the products of a certain company with whose policies we disagree, we can change quite a lot. Even the threat of a 10% loss in sales for a month will have boardroom impact.

I believe we should change by politics by changing business. Elections every 4 years is too long a time span for dealing with the relatively rapid changing nature of the problems we face. Business is quarterly. They listen to the tills.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

I certainly considered withdrawal of purchase as well as withdrawal of labour. But while withdrawal of purchase might get a company to - say - stop using child labour or pay a semi-decent living wage, it is a much more indirect approach. It is, I think, far easier to get the employees in a factory to strike for higher wages for themselves, than it is to get customers to refuse to buy in order to get higher wages for someone else. While the net economic effect might be similar, I can't quite see the latter happening as easily as the former.

That aside the underlying organisational infrastructure is fundamentally the same for both kinds of operations. Ultimately I would envision an organisation capable of organising a strike on a factory in China, a blockade of the transshipment terminals in Singapore and a consumer boycott in Copenhagen. Simultaneously. Directed against the same company. I imagine that such a multi-pronged approach would be far more effective than just applying pressure to a single point. If for no other reason then because such an approach would create greater redundancy in the operation.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

But do you agree that changing business could be a faster method of changing politics, as well as bringing about more instant wage/conditions equality?

BTW Your vertical approach is very interesting. I am sure Sun Tzu has something to say about supply chains as a vulnerable weakness.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (4.00 / 2)

But do you agree that changing business could be a faster method of changing politics, as well as bringing about more instant wage/conditions equality?

Of course. The Scandinavian labour markets prove that beyond any reasonably doubt. There organised labour managed to create progress that for much of the 20th century outpaced political regulation.

BTW Your vertical approach is very interesting. I am sure Sun Tzu has something to say about supply chains as a vulnerable weakness.

The vertical approach is a logical consequence of the increasing vertical consolidation of the trans-nats. In the Bad Old Days that shaped the labour unions we know today, a single company was usually focused on a single business area - the production, transportation and the sale of products were handled by different companies (with robber-baron railroads being a notable exception). So if you wanted to change company policy, hitting other business areas meant increasing the collateral damage to yourself and society at large while the additional pressure generated by your action was applied in an indirect fashion and thus - all other things being equal - less effective.

Today, the trans-nats do their dead level best to control every aspect of the production, distribution and sale of their products (and probably also the resource extraction part). This makes them more resilient to traditional single-sector action because their profits are more diversified, but more vulnerable to a cross-sector action, because it becomes easier to establish the connection (both psychological and financial) between each of the sectors you hit.

Although you're certainly right that blocking supply-line bottlenecks is a very effective tactic, I can't say I thought of Sun Tzu and supply lines when I wrote it. Actually I thought more of the general strike - in which you affect political change by paralysing an entire country at a time. With trans-nats increasingly taking on the characteristics of countries (they have their own infrastructure and their real estate and turnover is frequently comparable to that of state actors), they increasingly become vulnerable to the same kind of paralysis.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 05:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (4.00 / 2)

Jake, are these kinds of discussions happening among the Lib Dems you know? England (the part of it called me at least) is crying out for "the new generation" of politicians, the ones who understand what's going on, who are active in working out what needs to be done. I'd suggest a block of "old left" labour, greens, Lib Dems, and "Freedom" conservatives--renewable energy, civil rights, and a new (this is the hard part!) contract between employees and employers following Chris's post-co-op model. I only ask coz you's a Lib Dem!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 10:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

Huh? Where did you get the idea that I'm a Lib Dem? I'm Danish, and I don't even know precisely what Lib Dem means in a Danish political context? As far as I know, the term is of UK origin, and I am insufficiently familiar with UK politics to know what it covers...

An alliance of labour and greens is a reality in Norway and the more the hard right works towards turning the West into police states the more social libertarians (I suppose that's what you mean by 'freedom conservatives') are likely to butcher a couple of ideological holy cows and shift their allegiance to the progressive bloc.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 01:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

Jake, I got you confused with Gary J (if I squint I can see why), a Lib Dem.

So, UK political hounds, how does it sound? "Working class" Labour + Lib Dems + Greens + "Civil Rights" tories = a strong majority. They'd have to get agreement, so there'd be scaling down/blocking "Surveillance" culture, there'd be a huge push for renewables (the tories would have to get over the NIMBY aspect--could they? I think that battle may be won now), the complicated part would be sorting out the financial mess. Hmmm. Is this a crazy suggestion? (From what Jake says, it seems (to me) to work in Norwary.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 01:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

From what Jake says, it seems (to me) to work in Norway

I mean, I suddenly connected what he wrote to what Solveig has posted recently--maybe I leaped a step.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 01:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

From what I recall, Solveig has posted a bit on how lefty politics is done in Norway. I'm sure she can give more details, but from what we hear down on this side of Kattegat, a socialist-green-social democratic alliance ousted the last rightist government.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 02:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

The purchase strike is also a lot harder to implement when the company being striked against doesn't make products for non-corporate consumers - industrial capital goods, for example. It's one thing to convince fellow workers to stop buying something for the good of the strike, but it's an entirely different proposition to convince major industrial operations to stop buying something for the same reason - especially if those purchase decisions were made years ago, and standing contracts exist well into the future.

Then again, the "comprehensive campaign" waged at the Ravenswood Steel plant in West Virginia stands as an example of the thing Jake S was talking about. A brief wikipedia blurb about it can be found under their entry on George Becker.

by Zwackus on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

Facebook is a huge time suck. That having been said, I think it's a great tool, that hasn't been fully utilized.

I think that the internet in general could be a highly useful tool.

The first thing that I can think of would be to counter the outsourcing trend with information.

Insted of looking down on working folks in India as the enemy, I'd say that there's a point to getting the point about jut how much less than their Western counterparts they're getting paid.

So set up a website, and try to get a hold of the US or European wages for jobs that have been outsourced to India or elsewhere. Getting workers in those countries that info would have a huge impact on their ability to negotiate with employers.

Second, I think that the behavior of European companies operating in the US is often atrocious, and would not pass in Europe. Having a transatlantic dialogue so these things are known globally would put an incentive on good behavior by companies.

We matter more than pounds and pence/ Your economic theory makes no sense "We work the Black Seam"-Sting

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 03:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 1)

Side point - the technology will be the same, but google, youtube, facebook, etc, will not be the vector - they are corporate interests to the same extent that any other corporation is, and they aren't interested in being used as a tool for labor rights, and in particular in countries like China where they are granted access to markets as long as they are willing to operate directly in conjunction with the ruling party.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:26:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Global Unions (none / 0)

Yes, of course, they only serve as proof of concept. But all of them had very simple uncorporate origins. If you have a scaleable concept, all you do is add servers.

The fact that some of them sold out (I am not yet convinced that Google is a total sell out) does not disprove the organizational concept.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 04:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nordic Model (none / 0)

I found this paper interesting:'Nordic Model of Collective Bargaining and Trade Unionism'.

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 02:37:50 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Fighting modern capitalism, except the retarded and purely ideological FT bunk, is not a good idea. Globalization is here and it is not going away. And furthermore, it's generally a good thing.

Go with the flow, adapt, as we have always done. The logical step now is that in a world more predisposed to capitalists and workers in poor countries than workers in rich countries, rich workers face the choice of becoming poor workers (or at least not much richer ones) or becoming capitalists.

I know what way I'll prefer to adapt.

Of course, in that world it won't be as fun to be a fire and brimstone marxist anymore...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 06:23:32 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

You don't have a 'choice' of becoming a capitalist unless you actually have access to capital, and to sustantial amounts at that. I am a wage slave, and barring a substantial windfall I will remain one until I retire or die, whether I like it or not. Choice has nothing to do with it.

by wing26 on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 01:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Of course you have. Cut your expenses and standard of living by 10 %. As you live in America where there are huge wage differences, there surely is someone living with 10 % less income than you have. Be happy that you can live at that level and save 10 % of your income at the same time. It doesn't have to be much. $100 every month, or $300 if you can manage it, really adds up over time due to te eighth wonder of the world, compounding.

I don't really know what it is, but Americans have some preferential savings vehicle called 401(k). Use it.

Too bad Bush didn't manage to amend the pension system as he was more or less going to copy the Swedish model which has turned the entire population here into capitalists. Bush can't even manage the good policies.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 02:14:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Sorry, but I think this is a rather glib reply and not at all realistic. Like very many people, a large part of my income goes to debt repayment. I already consume very little and there is no fat to trim in any meaningful sense. Even following your suggestions the amount of 'capital'I could raise would be derisory, compared to the amounts required to become a 'real' capitalist (rather than, say, someone exploiting themselves running 'their own' small businness 24/7 before bankruptcy overtakes them in a few years.)

But the real problem with your argument is that it does not generalize. Let's say I do become a happy capitalist following your prescription. Can all those who are also wage-slaves do the same? Can even a substantial fraction of them do it? What does a 'capitalist' economy without workers look like? (It is, of course, a contradiction in terms.) If the arument doesn't generalize, then choice is illusory. It is like saying we can ALL be rich if we just try hard enough. But being rich is, in our society, a social relation, and it requires the existence of the poor.

Finally, FWIW, I dont live in the US and my local equivalent of a 401K is reaaly little more than a forced contribution to the stock markets in order that fund managers may generate fees on five percent of my wage every month. By law, I have no access to that money until retirement.

by wing26 on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 07:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Globalisation (none / 0)

Fighting modern capitalism, except the retarded and purely ideological FT bunk, is not a good idea. Globalization is here and it is not going away. And furthermore, it's generally a good thing.

But I am not talking about fighting globalisation. I am talking about using globalisation for progressive ends. Near-instantaneous communication, global mobility of capital and a global goods market - the very building blocks of a global labour union - are all features of globalisation. The way I see it, the strength of global labour unions is precisely that they do not attempt to do away with globalisation - as you say that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They would simply ensure that the trans-national executive class would not be the only ones to enjoy the benefits of globalisation.

Furthermore, I am not talking about 'fighting global capitalism,' although I am reaching for many of the same instruments that have been used to fight capitalism in previous centuries. What I'm agitating for is 'capitalism with a human face' - to paraphrase another slogan from yester-century. I am not arguing that we should abolish private property. I am not arguing that productive forces should be handed over to the proletariat. I'm not even arguing against the right of the employer to lead and organise the work.

I am arguing that labour unions - as essential a part of a well-regulated capitalist economy as banks and stock markets - make use of the same tools that the trans-nats do in broadly the same way: To transfer capital across borders to support operations abroad, and to make and execute decisions in real time across national borders. And I am arguing that when unscrupulous biznizmen rape third-world countries and their citizens (figuratively and - all too often - literally), organised labour should hold them accountable for their atrocities, since no-one else seems able or willing to do it.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 02:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Globalisation (none / 0)

While it makes perfect sense to have transnational labour unions, it will never ever work. National identity is 100 times as strong as class indentity. Maybe if all workers switched to a language and religion of their own... Labour unions are built on solidarity. People don't feel solidarity, not when it really matters, with people who are different, with whom they don't identify. Like foreigners.

Not to mention the huge collective bargaining problems you would have when the members have such hugely diverging wages.

You might get it to work in the EU, with huge efforts. Or maybe only in the richer EU countries. In some formerly communist occupied countries labour unions=Satan.

I remember when GM decided to close a factory in Europe. It stood between Trollhättan (Sweden) and Rüsselsheim (Germany). Both sides initially promised not to undercut each other and then proceeded to do exactly that anyway. In the end the Swedish government launched a big infrastrucuture program for Trollhättan which convinced GM to stay here and leave Rüsselsheim.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 04:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Globalisation (none / 0)

I think you underestimate the persuasive power of the combination of crushing poverty and being very, very pissed-off.

Global collective bargaining would not - initially - aim at necessarily setting the same wage for everyone. Living expenses as well as wage expectations differ across countries, after all. The initial steps would be setting up a global framework to discuss things on that level in the first place, and then raise wages in the countries where the workers is being abused most cruelly. And a global labour union would probably not replace national labour unions outright.

That being said, history shows that it is not impossible to mobilise an entire (sub)continent in support of social reform. In the late 1840s and the 1850s, all of industrialised Europe was in the next-best thing to full revolt over the appalling social conditions and the lack of democracy. It took less than five years for the revolt to spread from the epicentre in Paris to the Russian border. And that was in a time where the fastest mode of transport for information and people in most of Europe was the horse-drawn carriage!

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 13th, 2007 at 12:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The strike screw (none / 0)

Of course, the bosses can do this as well - and during the 2004 California supermarket strike, that's exactly what they did, effectively clubbing together to share profits and losses because they had a common interest in screwing over their workers.

It worked partly because they were selling a vital product. I mean, people can hardly refuse to buy food in solidarity, can they?

(OTOH, the tactic has worked very well in recent strikes in New Zealand, with large donations flowing to support striking workers, because unions here understand that they need to work together to ratchet up wages, and that an increase elsewhere can then be used to argue for an increase for their own members to preserve relativities)

by IdiotSavant on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 05:53:43 AM EST

Re: The strike screw (none / 0)

I know that - in point of fact, I even commented on that in the diary. But once the employers band together, they have crossed a both practical and psychological threshold into collective bargaining, in which collective contracts can be written for entire industries at a time - and this is generally a way of doing things that favours labour over capital.

Of course if the employer's union has a bigger strike fund than the labour union, labour loses. In Denmark the rule of thumb says that you have to be able to maintain a strike for 1½-2 months for it to be successful, but obviously that varies by country and by industry. Do note, however, that very few strikes actually last that long - both sides usually have a reasonably good idea about the relative strength of the negotiators and cut their losses when they stand to lose (furthermore, parliament will usually stop an out-of-control strike by dictating a more or less fair compromise).

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 01:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking the power (none / 0)

I certainly agree that an international workers' movement would be a powerful (and ultimate) weapon, though I'm afraid it might take a little time.

I suspect you're right in your allusions to nineteenth-century liberalism.

a lot of the supply-side BS we hear today was first said during the industrial revolution (and almost word-for-word to boot)

I'd be very interested if you had any pointers/links on this.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 13th, 2007 at 02:50:22 PM EST

Re: Breaking the power (none / 1)

Take a look at the editorials in the major European liberal/conservative newspapers from around the time of the birth of organised labour. They should be available either in reproduction or electronically at your local library. Unfortunately I can't be any more specific than that - the actual text I'm thinking of is a Danish newspaper editorial that we read in History in High School, but that's four or five years ago now, and the text itself is in Danish...

But it had all the tripe we hear now: Higher wages leads to inflation, which will eat up the initial gains over time; blocking production makes everyone poorer; I don't think that particular editorial ran the tired 'people who want to work should not be prevented from doing so by overzealous labour unions' line, but that too was a popular narrative at the time.

- Jake

Your representatives may not listen to you. But they do read your e-mail.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Dec 13th, 2007 at 03:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Breaking the power of the "Economic Royalists" | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]