Is it worrying that EDL members freedoms are restricted

[Jeff Robinson]

If my job didn't improve my material circumstances I wouldn't go.

That's why Marxists call it "wage slavery".

 

[8ball]

So that's a no to trade unions and industrial action then. Again you deal in abstraction, not really lived lives. Why do you always choose abstracted ideas over flesh and blood people?

Wouldn't freedom of association combined with the freedom of economic activity add up to the freedom to collectively bargain?

That seems pretty libertarian to me.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You mean I don't get any say over what I do during 40-odd hours of every week? Sounds like that employer has totalitarian control.

Wrong again Random; you freely entered the contract with the employer to place yourself, your knowledge and skills at their disposal, and you are free at any point to walk away and pick another employer. Now will you stop scheming to see how you can rob your boss and get back to work!

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I was fairly amazed to see this the other

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Wouldn't freedom of association combined with the freedom of economic activity add up to the freedom to collectively bargain?

That seems pretty libertarian to me.

No because the coming together in combination would curtail the freedom of the individual employees and the employer to enter one to one contracts; some might consider such restrictions almost totalitarian.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

I was fairly amazed to see this the other

As he destroyed PATCO.

 

[8ball]

No because the coming together in combination would curtail the freedom of the individual employees and the employer to enter one to one contracts; some might consider such restrictions almost totalitarian.

I wasn't arguing for compulsory union membership.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

As he destroyed PATCO.

Obviously...

I was still intrigued by the rhetoric. Thatcher would never had said anything like that.

 

[butchersapron]

Obviously...

I was still intrigued by the rhetoric. Thatcher would never had said anything like that.

Reagan had a history of playing left-wing from the 40s/50s when he helped set up unions that he then grasseed on. Paul Buhle has written some great stuff on this.

 

[8ball]

That's why Marxists call it "wage slavery".

No, they call it wage slavery because the means of production are controlled by a class with opposing interests.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I wasn't arguing for compulsory union membership.

Doesn't need to be compulsory; a voluntary membership still impinges on the employer's ability to freely negotiate individual contracts.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Obviously...

I was still intrigued by the rhetoric. Thatcher would never had said anything like that.

Don't forget he was an actor willing to take on a role as required.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Reagan had a history of playing left-wing from the 40s/50s when he helped set up unions that he then grasseed on. Paul Buhle has written some great stuff on this.

I knew Reagan was an old union man, but I didn't know about his early turncoat activities. Ah well, at least the evil shit is dead now. How long till his Brit comrade follows suit?

 

[8ball]

Doesn't need to be compulsory; a voluntary membership still impinges on the employer's ability to freely negotiate individual contracts.

Not for non-members of the union.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No, they call it wage slavery because the means of production are controlled by a class with opposing interests.

No it doesn't, it refers to the situatation whereby a person's life depends on their ability to sell their own labour power.

 

[8ball]

No it doesn't, it refers to the situatation whereby a person's ife depends on the ability to sell his or her labour power.

... to someone who controls the means of turning the value of their labour into profit, then trimming off the excess.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Louis is teasing 8ball, he's mocking the indvidualistic conception of freedom that underpins rightwing libertarian thought.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

... to someone who controls the means of turning the value of their labour into profit, then trimming off the excess.

Yes, that's capitalism, of which wage slavery is a component.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Not for non-members of the union.

And how would you make sure that everybody (including employers who need to be free to eneter into individual contracts) is afforded the protection of non-membership?

Louis MacNeice

 

[8ball]

Louis is teasing 8ball, he's mocking the indvidualistic conception of freedom that underpins rightwing libertarian thought.

If this is playing 'devil's advocate', that's fine.
I still don't see how the freedom to collectively bargain is only allowable when an employer does it (by which I mean, I haven't heard a cogent argument in tha vein, flawed or otherswise).

 

[8ball]

Yes, that's capitalism, of which wage slavery is a component.

I think you've lost sight of my post, which was that work (in my case) has (only) material benefits.
That in itself isn't wage slavery. I could have a reasonable paid job in a worker's co-operative and still not like it very much...

 

[8ball]

And how would you make sure that everybody (including employers who need to be free to eneter into individual contracts) is afforded the protection of non-membership?

Sorry, how do I assure that employers are afforded the protection of non-membership of unions? Is that what you're actually asking?

And why do employers need to be free to enter into individual contracts?

 

[Random]

I think you've lost sight of my post, which was that work (in my case) has (only) material benefits.
That in itself isn't wage slavery. I could have a reasonable paid job in a worker's co-operative and still not like it very much...

Whether you're working in a workers' coop or not makes no difference. If the choice is 'work or starve' then it's wage slavery.

 

[8ball]

If the choice is 'work or starve' then it's wage slavery.

No, if the choice is 'work to feed someone else or starve' then it's wage slavery.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If this is playing 'devil's advocate', that's fine.
I still don't see how the freedom to collectively bargain is only allowable when an employer does it (by which I mean, I haven't heard a cogent argument in tha vein, flawed or otherswise).

This isn't what I've been saying. Collective bargaining is against freedom in all circumstances under capitalism. Of course I'm having a laugh at the absurdity individualistic freedom when elevated to the level of abstract principal, as moon likes to do.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Sorry, how do I assure that employers are afforded the protection of non-membership of unions? Is that what you're actually asking?

And why do employers need to be free to enter into individual contracts?

I'm being ironic. You ensure that employers and employees are afforded the protection of non-membership (the protection of their sacrosanct individual freedom), by measures such as banning union membership (e.g. UK 19th century) or outlawing collective bargaining (e.g. Wisconsin 2011).

Louis MacNeice

 

[8ball]

Collective bargaining is against freedom in all circumstances under capitalism.

I may be missing out on some Ayn Rand-type theory here, but I don't see why agreed bargaining between groups is different to bargaining between individuals. It's how it works almost all the time in capitalism. I don't have an individual contract of employment with my boss, I have a contract of employment with an abstracted legal entity - which is a step further away again from a contract between individuals.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If my job didn't improve my material circumstances I wouldn't go.

Sadly, that's all it improves, but I keep going.

My point is that for probably 20% of the working population, the last 3 decades of work have seen no improvement in material circumstances, and in some cases a diminution of material circumstances, even with the artificial propping-up provided by the credits system.

 

[8ball]

My point is that for probably 20% of the working population, the last 3 decades of work have seen no improvement in material circumstances, and in some cases a diminution of material circumstances, even with the artificial propping-up provided by the credits system.

I'd agree entirely that you can be economically active and have your material circumstances gradually eroded. I don't think that takes away from the fact that the right to take part in economic activity is vital for any route out of poverty. That's not to say that as soon as you give people the 'right' to choose between a cabal of exploitative employers you have somehow made things 'fair', though.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I may be missing out on some Ayn Rand-type theory here, but I don't see why agreed bargaining between groups is different to bargaining between individuals. It's how it works almost all the time in capitalism. I don't have an individual contract of employment with my boss, I have a contract of employment with an abstracted legal entity - which is a step further away again from a contract between individuals.

Robert Barro, a Harvard economics professor, sees collective bargaining as being 'more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty'; so while I was being ironic it's not difficult to find people who are seriously treading the path I took a mischevious detour down.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. There are plenty of US blogs that are much more explicit in their espousal of individual freedom and the measures they think need to be taken to protect and promote it.