FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Walmart Strike (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Walmart Strike
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Also, in that one sentence you issue a disputed historical assertion as fact. And then, even worse, you make a prediction about the future that is also just an unargued assertion.
Absolute statements, using word like all or none, I think i agree with you. That's probably an overstatement. But as to the broader issue I think it's pretty clear she meant to get at (but she can correct me if I'm wrong), do I understand you to be claiming that without strong labor agitation and politicking, legal protections for things like overtime and safety would be more or less the same?
Not necessarily. I don't know what they would be like. She doesn't either. That's my point.

To look at times in the past and say "things were worse" is one thing. I think you can do that with any point in all of history, pretty much. But to then say "X is the reason why things got better," well... that's more dicey. You'd better have a good explanation for why you think that.

And to say "And if we hadn't done X then things now would be way worse in Y and Z ways," is reallystretching things. That's going from an attempt to explain a cause of something into, essentially, soothsaying.

Broadly, though, I think that although we are overall better off than in the Gilded Age, the Gilded Age itself was vastly better than the hundred years before it. Which were better than the hundred years before that. Which were...

You get my point. And I'm not convinced that all of the improvements across the ages have been due to the actions of unions, or their analogues.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.

You know, Blayne, the more I think about this, the more obnoxious it seems.

I let you know that you had misunderstood me. I proposed a couple of possible solutions. Including the (generous, I think) option of me completely rewriting my position in an attempt to make it clearer for you.

Instead, you insist that no, you understand me fine, and to prove it you... misquote me, and continue arguing against a gross misunderstanding of my position.

This kind of sloppy thinking and discussing is not conducive to a productive critical discussion. If you're going to continue, I think you would seriously benefit from taking a step back, re-reading what I said (and your responses), and try to adjust your understanding of what I said. Or, if that's not possible, try asking some clarifying questions rather than making assumptions and then arguing with your assumptions.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Destineer isn't anti-union, Kate.
Well, it's an interesting question.

Do I think unions serve overall beneficial functions as things presently are? Yes. But at the same time, I wonder if weakening unions might not be so bad, if other social entities arise to take their place in certain ways.

Right now, unions have two roles: as collective bargaining clubs, and as lefty special interest groups. I wonder whether those two roles might not be better served by separate entities. Perhaps the second, political role could be better handled by something like a more mature version of the Occupy movement, something devoted to social justice but without the protectionist motives that unions have.

quote:
None of the laws we have regarding workplace safety, a 40 hour week, overtime or what have you, would have existed without unions,
Certainly not, I agree.

quote:
Nor will they continue to exist for long without strong unions.
I don't know if this is true. I certainly hope it isn't true, because the way things are going we are not going to have strong unions in the future. I wonder whether a national social justice movement (something Occupy-inspired) could take their place in this regard.

quote:
Yeah, the idea that labor has "intrinsic value" is a pernicious fable in our culture. I think it contributes to the misunderstandings around this topic. Like when high-profile politicians say that someone who works hard should get enough money to have a house/car/middle class life etc.

Labor has value when people value that labor, or more accurately, the result of that labor. You can work hard digging a ditch nobody wants dug, and it doesn't have value. Or, if it has value to you, that's great, but nobody's gonna pay you for digging it.

You can work hard writing a post on an internet forum... and maybe that does have value to people, but not monetary value, so you still won't get paid.

I actually meant value in the broader sense, not the monetary sense. I think leisure time is more valuable to people and contributes more to their well-being than labor does, and the US's protestant work ethic keeps most people from recognizing that fact. Working on one's own personal goals is great, of course. But there's this ideal in the US that it's noble to do something you'd never do for its own sake, if you get paid for it and that helps you put bread on the table. Actually, it's a waste of time. Might be a necessary waste of time, but still, it shouldn't be treated as an end in itself or something that needs to be artifically encouraged.

quote:
Also, Destineer: What exactly are you calling deeply sick?
The mentality that says it's noble to turn down charity, even when you need it. And the very similar mentality that says it's better to work for your money than to have it given to you.

quote:
Similarly, there's no point in being ashamed of taking charity. But if you only want to receive stuff from other people when they it's an exchange for mutual benefit, then I can see potentially refusing some charity.
I guess. And if you only want to receive stuff that comes in plastic bags, I can see refusing charity if it comes in paper bags. But in neither case do I see any justifiable reason for such a preference. The only good reason to refuse charity is if someone else could use it more, IMO.

quote:
Unless the person is being charitable genuinely because they want to do so and they think it will improve their lives. Then it would be a form of mutual exchange. But such a person might turn away some forms of "pity" charity. Is that deeply sick? I'm not so sure.
I think there's a mistaken assumption here. Charity isn't something that should be pity-motivated. It's something that should be justice-motivated. I give to charity (and vote for laws that redistribute wealth) because I think it's unjust that other people are so much poorer than I am and thus have so much less control over their own lives than I have over my life. I'm not giving them something as a present, because I feel sorry for them. I'm giving them what I owe them, as fellow humans. What they deserve.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Now you're misquoting me. I didn't use the word "doubt" anywhere in my post.

I assume your quoted "doubt" is actually a paraphrase of something I said, but I can't figure out what.

You are consistently arguing that we cannot know if not having unions would degrade worker protections. Its reverse is true, we cannot know if RTW would also improve worker's conditions, thus we should not implement RTW legislation without study and bipartisan consensus.

Why do you believe it is more right to pass RTW legislation, than it is to keep the status quo without further study?

e: Destineer the occupy movement utterly failed, putting left wing interest into that umbrella would also lead to failure. Unions have been so far most effective and so I believe it best if they stick together.

Also of course labour has value, re: Das Kapital.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Additionally arguing that because living standards were better during the industrial revolution than during the middle ages in which unions didn't exist to drive that change ergo unions aren't required to improve living standards now is entirely and profoundly nonsensical.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan,

quote:
To look at times in the past and say "things were worse" is one thing. I think you can do that with any point in all of history, pretty much. But to then say "X is the reason why things got better," well... that's more dicey. You'd better have a good explanation for why you think that.
I...well yes. The explanation being that as generations have passed and the lower, larger portions of the pyramid have grown-through the slow, plodding progress of improvements in education and standards of living-become less and less willing to accept and employer's de facto overwhelming superior individual power-we have become more and more willing to listen to the idea that if we don't like this disparity, there is another way besides 'try to be the top yourself'.

If you can argue with any of that, I'd be interested, but in the field of 'good explanations'...Dan, what on Earth is *yours*? These reforms we're talking about, unions didn't just spring forth wholly formed out of the collective heads of labor and demand them. It took generations, centuries even, of unsuccessful attempts to move beyond the tiny incremental progress of supply and demand.

How do we know these reforms would probably have not taken place as powerfully without unions? Because people *asked* for them before unions, without notable success-but when unions asked, strangely the pace quickened perceptibly. But maybe you're right, and we shouldn't think there's much of a connection?

I mean, can you point to a time and place where, above the micro level, in whole industries on the regional or national scale, embraced the sorts of reforms we're talking about *without* the presence within or nearby of organized labor? Are we to seriously entertain the notion that growing worker unhappiness with the status quo *wasn't* a hugely important factor in...changing the status quo?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2