Why I prefer union organizing over #FightFor15 and Universal Basic Income

Don't get me wrong. I don't oppose raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Nor do I oppose the idea of a Universal Basic Income.
Both ideas are better than what we have now, and I'll be happy if either or both are implemented.

However, there is a flaw with both ideas that I just can't overlook:

Neither of these proposals empower the workers.

After watching several videos of economist Richard Wolff, I've come to the conclusion that he's right. We need to think bigger.

The important concept here is "power".
Power is everything. Just think back to your last job interview and you'll get the idea.
Power is the reason why workers formed labor unions in the first place. When you are alone against the company you have no power.

This is why I'd much rather see legal obstacles to forming labor unions be swept aside, rather than expend our limited energy and time on a one-time minimum-wage hike.
This goes double for Universal Basic Income, where workers would be forever dependent on the whims of whatever government bias of the time.

The other reason I believe we need to think bigger is because of just how bad things have gotten. Decades of class war have left U.S. workers disenfranchised and a domestic oligarchy that Russian oligarchs could only dream of.

“If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets.”

- Chris Rock

First of all, we have to acknowledge that poor people have no idea just how rich wealthy people are, and thus how poor they actually are.

The poor underestimate how much the rich earn, while the rich underestimate the poverty of the poor.

Some misperceptions appear extreme. For instance, among the 5 percent of U.K. respondents who said they or their family owned two homes, a whopping 40 percent thought they were in the bottom half of the income distribution. Meanwhile, 19 percent of Americans who said they had “often” or “sometimes” gone without enough food in the previous year placed themselves — implausibly — in the highest-earning half.

So how rich are wealthy people? To measure that accurately we have to stop talking about income inequality, which is a snapshot, and start talking about accumulated wealth inequality.

The conservative Hudson Institute in 2017 reported that the wealthiest 5% of American households held 62.5% of all assets in the US in 2013, up from 54.1% 30 years earlier. As a consequence, the wealth of the other 95 percent declined from 45.9% to 37.5%.
...If you only looked at data on income inequality, however, you’d see a different picture. In 2013, for example, the top 5 percent of households earned just 30% of all US income (compared with possessing nearly 63% of all wealth).

The next thing we must do is to put that wealth disparity into context.
One way to do that is a historical comparison.

One statistic cited by the Gilded Age documentary is that, by the time of that 1897 ball, the richest 4,000 families in the U.S. (representing less than 1% of the population) had about as much wealth as other 11.6 million families all together. By comparison, as of November 2017, the three richest individuals in the U.S. had as much wealth as the bottom half of the population.

To put it another way, wealth inequality is worse today than at any other time in American history.
Another more effective context is to compare that wealth to how much we are spending on the poor.

U.S. wealth increased by $8.5 trillion in 2017, with the richest 2% getting about $1.15 trillion (details here), which is more than the total cost of Medicaid (federal and state) and the complete safety net, both mandatory and discretionary, including the low-income programs that make up the social support package derisively referred to as 'welfare.'
...Another stunner: The richest 2-5%, those Americans with an average net worth of about $2.5 million, accumulated enough wealth in 2017 to pay for the safety net four times.

So the next time you hear that we can't tax the wealthy enough to pay for our social safety net programs, you know that it is a flat out lie.

Food stamps provide about $1.50 per meal for 42 million Americans, mostly children, the elderly, and the disabled, at a cost in 2017 of $64 billion. In the past year Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg have together accumulated over $64 billion in new wealth.
Jeff Bezos has used tax havens and high-priced lobbyists to avoid the taxes owed by his company

The natural and perfectly logical reaction to these facts is to yell, "tax the rich".
That would certainly help, and I would totally agree with it.
But like raising the minimum wage, it also falls short of what needs to be done.
Raising taxes on the wealthy can be undone by the very next Congress.

What the U.S. needs is a much more structural change.
Power needs to be taken from the wealthy and corporations and given to the working class.
Of course the wealthy will resist this, probably with violence, but extreme poverty is a form of violence as well.

One of the best points Professor Wolff makes is how we leave democracy aside when we go to work. Why? Why should we just accept that work is a democracy-free zone?
In Germany, and many of the nations in Europe, it is law that workers determine who sits on the Board of Directors, and German companies are kicking the asses of American companies.
If workers had a say in how the company runs, do you think they would approve of dystopian tracking-wear like Amazon? Or that the owner would be worth $110 Billion, while the workers live in their cars?

Maybe if we started thinking bigger, half of the population that doesn't vote might find a reason to vote. And then who knows what might happen.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

upside down

Of all the solutions to poverty that other developed countries have already implemented, Alston points out one particularly American failure: Insufficient public services and structural support for lower income people. Describing the American view of welfare services, Alston notes that in the US society “immense faith is placed in the goodwill and altruism of the corporate beneficiaries, while with welfare reform the opposite assumptions apply. The poor are inherently lazy, dishonest, and care only about their own interests.”
up
0 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

They're perfectly fine with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, but that's only because those bastards capitulated to the billionaires. Any worker or group who refuses to do so will immediately be punched the fuck down by both the Repigs AND Porky Dems. Oh, and they're also fine with the psychopathic Police Union and Screen Actors Guild for the same reasons. Pig workers, all of them.

up
0 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

@The Aspie Corner
hillary_0.png
seiu.PNG

My issue with unions is that they purged all their socialists in the late 40's.
That left labor unions without a political agenda, just an economic one.

Well, a union without a political philosophy isn't a union - it's a guild.

Fortunately, unions CAN be reformed. The membership has to care enough.

up
0 users have voted.
thanatokephaloides's picture

@gjohnsit

My issue with unions is that they purged all their socialists in the late 40's.
That left labor unions without a political agenda, just an economic one.

Well, a union without a political philosophy isn't a union - it's a guild.

A geld, did you say? Wink

Fortunately, unions CAN be reformed. The membership has to care enough.

UE is a union like that. Were I still working in a unionizable scenario, UE's the Union I'd want!

Diablo

up
0 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

the bottom half of the wealth distribution. Wow. That one is a bit of a stunner, although I don't know why that shocks me a bit, the propaganda is so thick in this country about inequality. Math is challenging for Americans, if it weren't I would think more people would simply look at the "defense" budget and see that we CAN "afford" it. But no, that one doesn't get through either and even when it does, it's usually followed by a shrug.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

@lizzyh7

19 percent of Americans who said they had “often” or “sometimes” gone without enough food in the previous year placed themselves — implausibly — in the highest-earning half.

Wow! Just how poor does this 19% think the lower half is?
Just how delusional are these Republican voters? (Yes, I'm predicting they are Republicans)

up
0 users have voted.

@gjohnsit
From the quote, it seems like that 19% is a subset of "Americans who said they had “often” or “sometimes” gone without enough food in the previous year".
Without some quantitative information on how many or what ratio of the whole population the "Americans gone without" is, the 19% of that is extraneous.

Great post, agree wholeheartedly with the main arguments.

up
0 users have voted.

Because they know better. Perfect point out of Jimmy to shut down the idiots who blame third party voters for Hers loss. And that isn't only in 2016 where that happened, as we all know.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

@lizzyh7
Put as simply as possible: the ruling elite doesn't want you to be engaged. That includes not voting.
So why would you do what they want you to do?

up
0 users have voted.

@gjohnsit

That includes not voting. So why would you do what they want you to do?

Back at ya brother, why do you keep pretending the ruling elite provide fair elections when evidence shows otherwise? Do tell.

up
0 users have voted.

@eyo
But if my enemy doesn't want me to do something, I have to suspect that there is a good reason to do it.

up
0 users have voted.

@gjohnsit thanks for telling me your answer, I think I understand why some people want to keep doing what they are told to do over and over, hoping the plutocracy might give up someday because ... well because ... shit I lost it already.

Maybe I don't understand why y'all keep trying to GOTV, it sure isn't working that's the obvious part. Electoral politics are broken beyond repair, the money and energy is better spent directly on human needs right now, not more consultants and book tours. DNC is and always will be a private corporation with unelected delegates. What are you going to do, buy it to change their rules? That's sarcasm, not a real question.

up
0 users have voted.

@eyo

Maybe I don't understand why y'all keep trying to GOTV, it sure isn't working that's the obvious part.

At least wait until after the 2018 elections to give up.
People only became aware of how corrupt the Dems are in mid-2016.

up
0 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

@gjohnsit Remember 2006? 2008? Both times the Pig Democrats literally got on their knees and sucked dick for whoever would bribe them. Even when they had the congress and the presidency the Ds still let the Rs dictate policy 10 ways from sunday because Corporate Libertarians own both the Rs and Ds.

Third Parties? Nope. They're deliberately kept out by rules that make it impossible for anyone to challenge the Libertarians, the Republicans and their Pig Worker Democrat allies.

up
0 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

@gjohnsit I just meant that Jimmy as well as you stated something rather obvious that most Americans know. So while they're busy blaming Russia or Jill Stein, there is no real discussion on that. And it shoots down the idea that either "influenced the election" to any significant point by tricking the electorate any more than it's already being tricked and lied to.

But I do agree that is another reason we're given such crap to vote for, keeps people turned off making it more likely a loony minority elects an idiot. Government being the only problem, ya know... s/

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Pluto's Republic's picture

Let's get behind taxing robots to provide UBI for all humans. End poverty. Human rights for everyone.

up
0 users have voted.

Because of the degree of difficulty politicians have placed on employees to Unionize Unions MUST support this human right. I see UBI and $15.00/hour wage as floors for which Unions can bargain above. Just like a single payer system. In Canada they have basic coverage for all Canadians but Canadian Unions bargain supplemental coverage for members.

And part of the problem with Unions mirrors what has happened to the Democratic party. My experience is that Union leadership election is not about electing who may be best for the members it's about whose turn it is. Some of these people are deserving but some are not. Much of what leadership does is about preserving their jobs.

Also I feel that some Union leaders treat politicians like celebrities and try and suck up rather then hold their feet to the fire.

That being said I owe everything I have to being fortunate enough to have a Union job and it is a great feeling to know in a State like WI there just cause in contracts. Well worth the price of dues.

Edit: spelling

up
0 users have voted.

O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.

Pluto's Republic's picture

This is an excerpt from Fast Company, although much of the economy-based literature agrees on these points:

The new analysis, from the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, considers three main scenarios: paying every adult $1,000 a month, paying all adults $500 a month, and paying $250 a month just to kids (a child allowance). In all cases–including different ways of paying for an UBI–the impact would be positive, economically speaking, the analysis says. If kids received $250 per month, GDP would grow 0.79% per year over an eight-year period; $1,000 for all adults would expand the economy by a whopping 12.56% over the same time frame. That would mean at least $2 trillion in additional wealth as the spending feeds down to businesses and individuals.

Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute’s research director, says the effect comes mostly from increasing consumer demand. The think tank argues that the economy is sluggish because people on middle and lower incomes aren’t earning enough money relative to inflation. Economic growth is going disproportionately to higher earners who are more likely to save than lower earners, who tend to spend more of whatever they have left. “It’s like buying a yacht. Saving is something that rich people are more likely to do,” Steinbaum, who coauthored the paper, says in an interview.

Steinbaum is not a fan of the automation argument for UBI. But he does think UBI could help workers to win better wages when they work. Like other left-of-center economists, Steinbaum argues that wages are stagnating not so much from business or economic factors, but rather because of power dynamics between employers and employees. UBI would give workers more voice, he says.

“The absence of job opportunities means employers can benefit at the expense of employees by reducing wages and benefits. If you make benefits not conditional on having a job, that increases workers’ bargaining power because they’re supporting themselves separately and they’re not dominated and manipulated,” he says.

up
0 users have voted.

@Pluto's Republic
If they underfund it, which is a political decision, then it isn't empowerment.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@gjohnsit

Underfunding would fail all the aims. Not giving it to everyone would, as well.

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

Here's an interesting analysis:

A guaranteed income floor can enhance the safety net, but it also reinforces the status quo of low paying jobs and adds one more layer to the bureaucracy of services for vulnerable populations. GBI, like raising the minimum wage, can be a useful strategy, ​​but the deeper systemic problem of low pa​id​ service jobs and underemployed workers remains.

Here you go:

Let’s go back to the future and create livable wage jobs again for every man or woman who needs one. There is a new economics (Modern Monetary Theory aka MMT) that has designed Job Guarantee (JG) proposals that are carefully crafted to complement the need for real, full employment when the private and public sector​s​ fail to meet the needs of our workforce.

Because it worked for America and all Americans under FDR:

The answer to this complex jobs conundrum can be found in our history books. During the Great Depression, FDR went beyond the safety net of social security and granted workers the right to organize unions. He put people to work by creating jobs to build infrastructure, established the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration, and many other programs. He did not offer training programs in the hope that the private sector would be able t​o profit from ​reforestation, or invest in building post offices, libraries, etc. The government acted in the interest of ordinary people, because our democracy gives our representatives the power to do so.

More good stuff here:

www.columbusunderground.com/opinion-provide-jobs-for-all-and-end-poverty...

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Strife Delivery's picture

@Meteor Man I've gone back and forth between job guarantees and UBI, or perhaps even a resource-based economy.

My contention with job guarantees I believe reinforces all the wrong qualities of humanity.

The concept of automation is acceleration, more so in a variety of fields. With the potential for automated vehicles, imagine the millions of workers gone in an instant. This will only continue as the human population grows but the amount of work required by human hands decreases.

This then forms makeshift work. Busy work. Or as I've heard from Rutger Bregman and David Graeber "Bullshit jobs". Jobs that are created simply to have give a means for a person to "earn a living". They don't have any inherent value or any real purpose, but meant to box the individual in for 8 hours a day to earn a check.

But, our Protestant work ethic is still alive today - where work is valued above all else. Where work defines a human being. A human being only derives their worth from the work they produce. Which shows in modern society how those whom are looked down upon are the unemployed.

I enjoy this quote from Buckminster Fuller

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

up
0 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@Strife Delivery

It turned everything around and brought into focus the meaning and dignity of being human.

You mention Rutger Bregman and David Graeber, and I urge anyone interested in the future and UBI to check out their talks on Youtube.

If we can get out of our own way, there is absolutely no reason why this planet cannot be a creative utopia for all creatures.

up
0 users have voted.
Meteor Man's picture

@Strife Delivery
It's a tough call Strife Delivery. They don't have to be shit jobs. We could look at Peace Corp, Conservation Corp, rebuilding infrastructure and all kinds of productive jobs to accomplish goals necessary to a healthy society and pay a living wage.

There is a part of every healthy human being that wants to do something productive with their life, maybe leave something behind for the next generation. Here's part of a comment I just left at my Abolish War post about how we could use the massive peace dividend from ending all wars:

For similar affordable amounts, the United States, with or without its wealthy allies, could provide the earth with education, programs of environmental sustainability, encouragement to empower women with rights and responsibilities, the elimination of major diseases, etc. The Worldwatch Institute has proposed spending $187 billion annually for 10 years on everything from preserving topsoil ($24 billion per year) to protecting biodiversity ($31 billion per year) to renewable energy, birth control, and stabilizing water tables. For those who recognize the environmental crisis as another critical demand as urgent in its own right as the war-making crisis, the plutocracy crisis, or the unmet human needs crisis, a global rescue plan that invests in green energy and sustainable practices appears even more powerfully to be the moral demand of our time.

War-ending, earth-saving projects could be made profitable, just as prisons and coal mines and predatory lending are made profitable now by public policy. War-profiteering could be banned or rendered impractical. We have the resources, knowledge, and ability. We don’t have the political will.

We don't have to chain our definition of productive jobs to being wage slaves for our corporate masters.

up
0 users have voted.

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Strife Delivery's picture

@Meteor Man

It's a tough call Strife Delivery. They don't have to be shit jobs. We could look at Peace Corp, Conservation Corp, rebuilding infrastructure and all kinds of productive jobs to accomplish goals necessary to a healthy society and pay a living wage.

But I believe that is limited in scope. You could for instance end up like China - building to simply build because they must have their GDP growth rate. I guess I'm not talking about say the next 20-40 years; I'm talking about the general arc of society for the next 100 or more.

I'm trying to imagine workers in the 60's. A store clerk or grocery bag guy and now in the 2010's (almost 2020's) you have self check-out stands. We are getting close to self-driving vehicles. Retail stores dying out (which includes their workers) because we have deliver-to-you-door Amazon. And on and on. What is the next 50 years going to be?

All of those things you listed are either admirable or productive for society as a whole. But, and perhaps this is my own thinking extrapolating this out to it's hypothesized completion, that we would run out of "human" work.

Yes, we could spend some trillions repairing and significantly upgrading our infrastructure (which 100 percent support; I wish we had high-speed rail 'loved my time in Japan because of them'). And this is a perfect-society scenario, but there would be less and less things that would require human hands to complete. I just wonder if we might run out of projects that require human labor at a significant level. I don't know what automation or advances will be in 50 years or 100 (well I'll be dead at that point). I guess my point is I think that the amount of human projects (while currently staggering) would not replenish at a fast enough rate to require a significant amount of the population to deal with.

There is a part of every healthy human being that wants to do something productive with their life, maybe leave something behind for the next generation. Here's part of a comment I just left at my Abolish War post about how we could use the massive peace dividend from ending all wars:

The Abolish War post is great; I'm going to focus on the first sentence.

Perhaps it's just me and maybe I'd ask Pluto's Republic since he replied to me as well, but to me it again feels like linking "being productive" to "work". Or rather that we link fulfillment/humanity with work. We idolize the concept of work, but the reality is that work is merely work. I don't believe we should idolize work.

Now, I might go off and create terms and definitions here, but I would separate work vs. passions.

Jonas Salk, the man who invented the polio vaccine, devoted his time for the pursuit of research. His polio vaccine was found to be worth 7 billion, but he didn't patent it because he said it belonged to the people. And in the end he merely wanted to return back to the lab.

I bring him up for two reasons. The first is that yes we would call what he did work, but it wasn't work. It was a passion, a pursuit. The second is in the end we link work = paycheck, but here he abandoned 7 billion bucks because he didn't need it nor want it. If he was in it for the money, he would have taken it. But he didn't. I guess it is the difference between a researcher who has to work because they have to work vs. a researcher who does it because it is their pursuit; they just get a paycheck to keep the roof over their heads. Basically is the check the reason you're there or not.

Let's look at our current modern work force. Many individuals doing abstract management or bureaucracy jobs simply because it is work invented for them. They don't feel fulfilled nor is it particularly productive. Yes, we could move them towards more productive areas while making it a livable wage, but it's still linking wages to living to productivity to value as a human being.

It's late and I feel like I'm rambling/spinning multiple threads but they aren't going anywhere, ha. I guess I would rather, in an ideal society, have 2 Jonas Salk's who stay late in the lab simply because it is their passion vs. 5 guys who are there simply because the pay is good. It's a difference between work as a means of sustaining oneself vs. a passion they are invested into themselves, regardless of monetary compensation. Thus, if monetary compensation isn't a concern anymore, you would see folks pursuing said passions. You'd have doctors who well actually give a damn about their patients instead of the Tesla car in their driveway. Teachers who enjoy actually teaching who aren't burned out and dead to the world. You'd have an explosion (I believe) of micro labs and researchers doing their own pursuits simply because they are freed from the restraints of "work".

In a sense, I miss the 19th-century gentleman. And yes, I will define that. These were the individuals who were chemists/physicists/mathematicians/doctors and more all rolled into one. Yes, they often were wealthy in some form of another, but they had their own labs, their own research they could pursue. They could pursue that because they were wealthy (which yes meant others did required work at the time for them). But I believe we are approaching a scenario where there won't be required "work". There are times when I have my own ideas in virology or in various sciences but I A) don't have a lab (ha) and B) I can't devote the time to pursue it because of work = living.

OK, I'm done for now. Now it is even later. I'll just leave it at that for now.

up
0 users have voted.

@Strife Delivery

(Re-edit: forgot to add how much I appreciated the essential point you made about independence, probably because it seems so obvious that I thought I'd made it, and hadn't actually planned to post it without checking when it landed here. But, yeah, technological advances were supposed to benefit humanity, not replace us entirely and/or turn us into machines, going by those believing that 'evolution' calls for humanity's alteration into mechanical tools and the destruction of life itself as unnecessary.)

Seems to me that this comes down to, with the ongoing disappearance of human jobs - mainly because corporate interests don't want to have pay human workers and prefer to make humanity unneeded disposables - either we get things somehow under control (lol, if bitterly,) and fight for that guaranteed minimum income in our various countries, to be maintained by law at a 'living' level, or perish, because the alternative pretty much boils down to an increasing number of people starving, homeless, or disposed of more 'efficiently', to get us out of the way.

We shouldn't be effectively asking major corporate interests/the hyper-wealthy to pretty-please pay a living wage, begging them not to poison us and the environment quite to the absolute 'cost-saving' max, to consider voluntarily at least paying a fair share of tax on the wealth sucked out of the rest of us, as though they're somehow entitled by their often-ruthless acquisition of wealth - at our cost and that of life on the planet - to rule what they've been illicitly permitted to abuse. Wealth doesn't get 'extra rights' in a democracy, where all are to have equal rights, treatment and opportunity, and the fact that this is accepted by so many in the US is due to endless propaganda conducted by experts - and worsening, drastically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_PLNeMuqu4

Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes
corbettreport

Published on 27 Feb 2018

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=26040

We all know that the "Deep Fakes" application that's going viral on the internet is only a crude toy compared to the technologies the government-sponsored, defence department-linked researchers have been playing with. Here's an example from the year 2000 that shows that real-time video fakery technology has been available to the deep state for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dL8vt1n-f8

The Weaponization of Social Media
corbettreport

Published on 1 Mar 2018

TRANSCRIPT AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=25740

Now openly admitted, governments and militaries around the world employ armies of keyboard warriors to spread propaganda and disrupt their online opposition. Their goal? To shape public discourse around global events in a way favourable to their standing military and geopolitical objectives. Their method? The Weaponization of Social Media. This is The Corbett Report.

This might have been coincidental and very likely was, but a Youtube comment I made paused for some time in a faded state and failed to post, although it promptly did when I removed a line mentioning corporate interest/multi-millionaire/billionaire-selected public officials, so sorta wondering about algorithms inflicting on Youtube users the same demands made of the Dem leadership, not to ever again mention the the 'b' and 'm' words in a disrespectful manner, although I'd think that would be too noticeable to actually do. A conditional trace of paranoia seems to be a good idea nowadays, though, as we can often only guess at whatever's going on with TPTB.

Edit: this seems to have posted on my clicking 'View', while taking me back to View, albeit with a blank comment box. What with all of the ongoing weirdness, I popped back here to check and at least avoided a duplicate. Lol, considering various potentials with that trace of paranoia can be helpful, lol. Now, will this post or View when I press post...

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Meteor Man
between Use Value and Exchange Value.

Capitalism only sees Exchange Value.
Which is why capitalism values scarcity while humanity values abundance.

up
0 users have voted.

UBI is a scam to prop up capitalism. Period. Give every adult $1000 a month - your rent just went up $1000 and your boss just layed you off because there was someone else willing to work for $1000 a month less. (untill he saves enough to buy a machine that works for nothing)
Now guarantee everyone at least $25,000 a year (Universal MINIMUM Income) Now when a boss offers $12.50 an hour you'll say no - that's empowerment. Landlords won't raise rents because no one except the poorest of the poor will have more money to pay.

up
0 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

@doh1304

Which, as you point out also floats the boats nearest them, in the shallows, where it matters most.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

mimi's picture

pretty powerful unions? It seems as if it had worked that way. I don't understand why, but I guess a guaranteed basic income for adults, who still can work, doesn't do the trick of guaranteeing less poverty among the working population. Guaranteed income for the elderly, who can't work anymore, I would support.

up
0 users have voted.
Daenerys's picture

@mimi

Guaranteed income for the elderly, who can't work anymore, I would support.

It's called Social Security, and no it's nowhere near enough.

up
0 users have voted.

This shit is bananas.

mimi's picture

@Daenerys
how much do you get if you never worked or were disabled and couldn't work? I thought more of a guaranteed income for elderlies that is unconditional and not dependent on your life circumstances you had before.

up
0 users have voted.

BY KILLING THE JOB!No JOB no need for a Union.

up
0 users have voted.

DW

thanatokephaloides's picture

Integral to the #FightFor15 movement is the demand for full union rights. So it would seem that the #FightFor15 folks see your point, gjohnsit, and agree with it!

Smile

up
0 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

The laws don't protect workers, that's why, or they are unenforced. Unions have bosses and lobbyists, the two most useless gears in existence, machine grease. Collective ownership of the whole pie is where it's at, not bargaining for scraps. Collective bargaining is better than nothing, barely. Unions haven't kept wages or benefits up anywhere for a long time now, they are not raising any tides or whatever the rhetoric says now.

I'll say it again, there is a lot of showing up to do in a "democratic" workplace, it is not easy. Rugged individuals don't want to go to boring meetings, deal with petty power trips, and vote on business stuff. Most people don't want to run for the board to oversee operations, it's a hard job to do for "free". Don't most people still think free means without cost, instead of freedom to pursue right livelihood or whatever?

Unions and their lobbyists should think about doing something productive and constructive for a change. Stop retreading the same old tires, do something different. Let's see the Teamsters strike the ports, to get higher wages in all Chinese supermarkets, begin with the largest brick and mortar in the USA, WalMart. Teamsters could strike for better conditions at AMZ if they were so inclined, but they are not. Unions are divisive, that's what I think.

I prefer movements toward worker owned co-ops and housing collectives. Wolff is in to them too, I'm glad about that but think it should be the preferred approach to unify the masses. Thanks.

up
0 users have voted.

@eyo Gotta love the WV teachers they are showing us how it's done. Union tentatively agrees, tells members to go back to work. Members say FU to the TA, the Union and "Wildcat" it. Fist pump to the members!!!!!!

up
0 users have voted.

O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.

go along get along, seat at the table insiders who protect their last minute processes, ummmmm ... who cares?

BTW/ anyone who wants to tell me it is up to me to change my pathetic ass union - go fuck yourself.

I already have a day job.

rmm

up
0 users have voted.

But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;

GreyWolf's picture

up
0 users have voted.