dough560 on September 05, 2011, 03:03:38 pm
 The conversations concerning union and government organization, mutual support, non-support and union disorganization have been interesting.  As they relate to the story.....  I need more information.

SandySandfort on September 05, 2011, 09:58:16 pm
Who knows? You might just be right. I don't think so, but since this whole debate has next to nothing to do with the EFT plot-line, I withdraw. I have much more important things to do than duke it out with you. So, I hereby declare you the winner. Thanks for playing.  :)

How would a "social movement" - a strike by employees - happen in an economy where each individual has an effectively unique relationship with the person(s) engaging his services? No "collective bargaining" in the sense that we understand it today.

In the AnCap society of the Belt, it's pretty obvious that a disaffected service provider (read "employee") might withdraw his services from an unsatisfactorily performing customer (read "employer") and subsequently publish on the Tanglenet notification of his action and his reasons for so acting.

That would tend to cause other service providers either to withdraw from their relationships with that customer or to negotiate their provision of services at higher premiums to compensate them for the increased risk of engaging in business with an unreliable or otherwise unsatisfactory customer.

But a strike - a "social movement" - implies that such service providers ("employees") have some socially approved means of preventing other service providers from doing business with the customer(s) against whom the "social movement" has been engaged.

Couldn't possibly work in an AnCap society, any more than "shunning" really would (because there would always tend to be somebody willing - for one reason or another - to do business with the proscribed person(s) against whom Tanglenet denunciations have been laid). 

Let's see how Mr. & Mrs. Juarez make out as customers crossing a picket line in what is obviously not an AnCap society....

Tucci78 on September 06, 2011, 06:14:40 pm
Who knows? You might just be right. I don't think so, but since this whole debate has next to nothing to do with the EFT plot-line, I withdraw. I have much more important things to do than duke it out with you. So, I hereby declare you the winner. Thanks for playing.  

And thus the plot line shifts abruptly away from Mr. & Mrs. Juarez, back to Ceres and the perspective of Guy Caillard.

On Mercury, "Suddenly, everyone was run over by a truck. The End."
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 06:21:55 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

quadibloc on September 06, 2011, 06:47:28 pm
On Mercury, "Suddenly, everyone was run over by a truck. The End."
I'm sure that we will get back to Mercury. Of course, I've been warned that I should not assume this situation will lead to anything of significance; perhaps it was just there to show that Babette is a savvy bargainer. Somehow, though, I doubt that.

sam on September 07, 2011, 09:53:19 am
Who knows? You might just be right. I don't think so, but since this whole debate has next to nothing to do with the EFT plot-line,

You put Chekhov's gun  on the wall.

See what happens?

That is why if you put put Chekhov's gun  on the wall, has to be fired in scene three.

ContraryGuy on September 07, 2011, 10:59:19 am
Today, we have strikes and we have scabs and yet strikes are still effective strategies.

Where is that?  Is it in places where there is no armed monopoly of force prohibiting the employer from simply firing the striking workers and hiring permanent replacements?

That's my biggest peeve with unions in the US -- they are just too damn powerful.

Obviously, you dont read trusted news sources enough.  Union power is fading quicker than newspaper relevance.
Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and/or listening to Rush for a minute.

ContraryGuy on September 07, 2011, 11:13:41 am
Saying it won't work is not an argument. Your assumption that a few scab workers obviate a strike is not credible. Today, we have strikes and we have scabs and yet strikes are still effective strategies.

The reason they are usually effective is because it is usually illegal for the employer to fire everyone who fails to show up on time and work as directed.

Further, strikes are not in fact all that effective.  They commonly succeed through the destruction of business assets, assaults on management, and intimidation of customers.

Sometimes it is legal to fire those who do not show up, or the government just gets fed up with union misbehavior and makes an exception to the rules - whereupon we often see a massive escalation of union misbehavior.

I love the mischaracterization of the strike.  Using threats like that, is more characteristic of market anarchists (read: organized crime) than of striking workers.

In a Right to Work state, any employer can fire any (or all) employee for any reason.  Such as "i'm having a fight with my mistress, and you got on my nerves; you're fired."
People object to this example saying, "no boss would ever do that." 
The point is that they could.  In a market anarchy, everywhere is a right-to-work state, and all employment is at-will.

When Reagan fired all of the PATCO workers, the air traffic controllers didnt retaliate by crashing airplanes into the ground, so, without actual examples I can read for myself that come from a trusted source, I would say that point of your argument doesnt hold up.

But this is sam, so I should know better than to feed a troll.

Tucci78 on September 07, 2011, 01:00:00 pm
Union power is fading quicker than newspaper relevance.

Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and/or listening to Rush for a minute.

The area in which unionized "labor" has increased in recent decades has been government employment, and this - as can be observed no matter which media one attends upon - is damned dangerous.

What had once been called "civil service" jobs had offered relatively low rates of pay in exchange for comparatively undemanding work (if not make-work and even "no-show" sinecures), rather solid job security, and reliable pension plans.  Effectively no unions.  If government jobholders struck - as in the PATCO strike of August 1981 - they could not only be fired but permanently blacklisted, and their collective bargaining unit decertified.

Today, however, their rates of pay and other compensation average higher than for comparable work in the private sector, the result of a multidecadal "ratcheting up" effect as politicians on both sides of the permanently incumbent Boot On Your Neck Party have continually pandered to the government thug unions for goons-on-the-street campaign workers and "contributions."

After all, the politicians aren't spending their own money to fatten the malevolent jobholders' paychecks.

I repeat: these government unions are damned dangerous.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 07, 2011, 03:28:36 pm
Today, we have strikes and we have scabs and yet strikes are still effective strategies.

Where is that?  Is it in places where there is no armed monopoly of force prohibiting the employer from simply firing the striking workers and hiring permanent replacements?

That's my biggest peeve with unions in the US -- they are just too damn powerful.

Obviously, you dont read trusted news sources enough.  Union power is fading quicker than newspaper relevance.
Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and/or listening to Rush for a minute.

I don't watch Fox News (I don't have Cable), and I work when Rush is broadcasting.

While union power in the social realm is fading, and even at the state level in some cases, at the federal level the government still forces employers to deal with unions whether they want to or not.   They are forced to use what is, in effect, a monopoly contract house, or take the work out of the country.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 07, 2011, 03:32:54 pm
In a Right to Work state, any employer can fire any (or all) employee for any reason.  Such as "i'm having a fight with my mistress, and you got on my nerves; you're fired."

And anywhere, any and all employees can resign for any reason.  Such as "I'm having a fight with my mistress and you got on my nerves; I quit."

In a Right to Work state there is symmetry; both employer and employee have equal power to terminate the relationship.

quadibloc on September 07, 2011, 07:09:47 pm
They are forced to use what is, in effect, a monopoly contract house, or take the work out of the country.

In a Right to Work state there is symmetry; both employer and employee have equal power to terminate the relationship.

All this is fine and dandy in the abstract.

In the real world, one employee quitting won't put a company out of business.

In the real world, ordinary working people spend their whole lives being qualified to do one particular kind of work.

So without laws protecting labor unions and collective bargaining, basically it's the employer who gets to set terms and say "take it or leave it" to prospective employees. And before we had laws making union activity legal, employers often subscribed to theories like the "iron law of wages" - that trying to pay workers more than bare subsistence would do no good, because then they'd just breed to such numbers that it would be impossible for them to earn more than that.

Of course, it is also true that enlightened behavior came from the private sector as well - Henry Ford is the best-known example.

And the horrors of the Industrial Revolution definitely had government help - enclosures come to mind.

It may be that as a complete system, AnCap can "work", but since the government interventions that favor business and the rich aren't as obviously and visibly government actions as the ones the poor and working class depend on, the project of disassembling government has to be done with extreme caution.

In a condition of plenty, humans, being good-natured and gentle by nature, will be content to live by honest work. Under conditions of crowding or disorganization, though, they will swiftly form into gangs both to defend themselves and to prey on others.

So the precondition for any kind of positive change in this direction is universal prosperity - like in the boom of the fifties and sixties, but for everyone. Then, government interferences in the economy that can be seen to be irrelevant can be dismantled.

Of course, even then there's always the risk of dismantling the wrong ones - the terrible consequences the whole world is still experiencing (for example, even far-away Iceland) from the ill-considered repeal of Glass-Steagall comes to mind.

sam on September 08, 2011, 04:05:53 am
So without laws protecting labor unions and collective bargaining, basically it's the employer who gets to set terms and say "take it or leave it" to prospective employees.

There is usually more than one employer an employee is qualified to work for.  So an employee can leave it.  Workers need jobs, but employers need workers.  Looks symmetric to me.

If there was a single employer, and a labor force qualified to work only for that employer, then you would have a case, but I just don't see any examples of that situation, other that people who work for the state, usually at wages far above those they would get in private employment.


mellyrn on September 08, 2011, 10:48:32 am
Quote
So without laws protecting labor unions and collective bargaining, basically it's the employer who gets to set terms and say "take it or leave it" to prospective employees.

An economist named Lane identified 3 different business power configurations:

1) owner-controlled business -- where, owing to prevailing conditions (maybe the owner is the first on the block with whatever his product is and barriers to entry are high, such as needing an extremely high level of skill), the owner can set the price of goods, and pay what wages he will.

2) employee-controlled business -- likely in conditions where demand for labor is high; then the employees are the ones who get to set the terms.  This will also apply when the business can be held hostage:  factory workers' strikes can be a whole lot more effective than, say, programmers' strikes because the factory can't just pack up its mill (and supporting infrastructure) and go somewhere else, where a software company could take a pocketful of flashdrives and hop the next flight out.  (You can argue this if you like; I'm solely trying to illustrate what I mean by "being held hostage".)

3) customer-controlled business -- tends to happen when there are multiple providers of goods, and demand for customers is high; then the customer gets to set the terms, choosing who to patronize and who not.

So, the employer does not always -- absent laws to the contrary -- get to set the terms.  Depends on what the prevailing business environment is like.

Interestingly, governments can be viewed through the same lens.  1) is a monarchy or dictatorship; 2) is the US -- anyone receiving public benefits is a de facto "employee" of this kind of system; 3) might be Singapore or the Grand Caymans or such, governments (of any form) which compete for citizens by offering the most attractive package of laws, tax rates, protections &c.  Nomads and vagabonds are notoriously hard to rule, since they can and do pack up and take their particular product(ivity) elsewhere.

macsnafu on September 08, 2011, 11:36:57 am
Saying it won't work is not an argument. Your assumption that a few scab workers obviate a strike is not credible. Today, we have strikes and we have scabs and yet strikes are still effective strategies.

The reason they are usually effective is because it is usually illegal for the employer to fire everyone who fails to show up on time and work as directed.

Further, strikes are not in fact all that effective.  They commonly succeed through the destruction of business assets, assaults on management, and intimidation of customers.

Sometimes it is legal to fire those who do not show up, or the government just gets fed up with union misbehavior and makes an exception to the rules - whereupon we often see a massive escalation of union misbehavior.

I love the mischaracterization of the strike.  Using threats like that, is more characteristic of market anarchists (read: organized crime) than of striking workers.

In a Right to Work state, any employer can fire any (or all) employee for any reason.  Such as "i'm having a fight with my mistress, and you got on my nerves; you're fired."
People object to this example saying, "no boss would ever do that." 
The point is that they could.  In a market anarchy, everywhere is a right-to-work state, and all employment is at-will.

Actually, given our current lawsuit-happy society, an employer is generally better off firing someone for no apparent reason at all, instead of giving a reason which they could then be sued over.
 

I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

dough560 on September 09, 2011, 04:55:27 pm
The suppositions are interesting, but we just don't have enough information, as they relate to the story.

 

anything