Does a global corporate economy require a global unionization effort ?

I recall a quote from Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations:

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations (that is, corporate consortiums or associations) of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual price."

Given that globalization of the world economy is ossified into place; Should there be a parallel effort by working men and women to demand decent wages and benefits EVERYWHERE, in order to make sure ALL workers are treated fairly, and to erase wage differentiations between continents and nations ?

Wouldn't such an effort, IF successful, remove the primary attraction of those who use globalization to seek the LOWEST wage regions to produce their goods ?

Just a thought when reading that Adam Smith quote ...

Your thoughts ?

Next answer ???

For there to be any "balance" such a movement is essential to stem the tide of exploitation.

That said, it is unlikely to gain any strength for a long time. It was hard enough to rally workers in the 1880s-1910s to bite the bullet and strike, in the face of loss of wages and brutal retribution. Now try that in Singapore, China...

Workers paradise ? .... Hah ! ... not on your life ....

I am an FDR capitalist .... believing in a regulated marketplace to smooth out the rough spots created by the apes in the economic jungle ...

I never supported communist ideals, but it is apparent the Chinese party has tossed aside it's illusion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and sold it's labor force to the highest bidder ... All for filthy lucre ...

And what is truly fascinating for me is that the world's mightiest corporate entities were first to line up at the Chinese border with their wallets open ....

The problem of China is not the workers, but their slavemasters in the party apparatus ... It is a sweet deal for them ....

I read and hear so many people complaining about "outsourced" jobs and "foreign" labor and "illegal" immigration, when these issues are really red herrings. Capital keeps the workers at each other's throats, and profit from our individual weakness. Globalized business requires globalized labor. The call center operator in India or sweat shop worker in China is a worker, just like you and me. It is in all our interest to reach out and try to form bonds with workers, wherever they may be. After all, the average American wage slave has far more interests in common with an Indonesian factory worker than he does with the uber-capitalists who just happen to have the same colored passport as him.

Mexico is a case in point: IF Mexican workers were paid a decent wage, they would not be uprooting their families and cascading across the border .... SURELY Mexican workers would gladly stay home in their own country IF there were decent wages available in their own land ...

Why is there not good wages there ? .. Could it be that wages are suppressed in their semi-feudal social structure ? .... Could be: And american capitalists prefer that reality ....

you pay a higher labor differential. IF you pollute the environment you pay the environmental differential.

The environmental differential can be our wedge to institute a true carbon tax.

It will be much easier to go at this politically than socially.
While US labor would be fighting for a "FARE" wage,
Chinese labor would be fighting for a sustenance wage

:patriot:

...the old free market Imperialism as practiced by 19th century European and Asian empires. That can not possibly work in the 21st century

answer imho. I agree in concept, but disagree that unionization is the answer. Some Unions are good, others are absolutely terrible and hinder business. I think the answer is strict enforcement and creation of fair labor practices, wages and benefits, whether in a union environment or not.

Unions aren't the answer?

You and I must be asking a different question.

I guess as a Democrat, my concern is not that the workers might be hindering business, but rather that business might be "hindering" workers - "hindering," as in destroying their lives as opposed to "hindering" business in the sense of cutting into profits a little.

I assume then, that you believe that what is good for management is good for the workers, what is good for GM is good for America, and that trickle down economics is a good thing.

Why think of oneself as a Democrat, if one is going to take the position of management over labor, of profits over people, of business over democracy?

Do you really fantasize that there is some way to enact legislation to protect workers without there being a strong workers movement to fight for that? "Unions" are what we call workers movements - unionization is the method for organizing workers so that they have a voice and the power to make such legislation possible. Your opinion that "some unions are absolutely terrible" doesn't change this reality. Your opinion that unions hinder business is the core belief of Republicanism and right wing economics.

Fall off the Democracy Tree?

"I think the answer is strict enforcement and creation of fair labor practices, wages and benefits, whether in a union environment or not."

That legislation won't ever/has never happened without pressure from workers.


Your comments are spot on.

I find it so odd that the traditional viewpoint of the party and of Labor is so rarely heard among Democrats, and seen as so controversial and such a novelty when it is.

If now - when we are on the verge of a Democratic party electoral landslide and the public is unmistakably turning against Reaganomics and "free market" ideas in overwhelming numbers - the traditional principles and ideals of the party cannot be expressed or are not heard or valued, when would they ever be?

I just don't think unionization of all workforces is the answer, and would cause a lot of harm as well. Laws demanding such treatment worldwide would be something I'd fully support. Of course there would have to be loud voices demanding such things and pressure from other governments in order to facilitate such a move. It is likely that it would never happen. It is no less likely then your concept.

I also believe that some Unions are incredibly useful and absolutely necessary, and I wholeheartedly support them. Classifying my position as one that means that I believe what's good for management is good for the workers is monumentally illogical in premise. Classifying my position as one that means I take the position of management over labor, profits over people and business over democracy, is just downright dumb.

The fact of the matter is that while there are good unions that are absolutely necessary, that there are also others that are corrupt and that contain workforces that are simply lazy and use their union status to enable that laziness. In some environments they can also be quite unfair as it relates to career advancement and reward. I know this first hand and with my own eyes. I in no way would ever support an ideal upon which every business had to deal with unions, since though there would be many that were beneficial, there would also be FAR too many of the unfair to other workers as well as the business itself kind that I think would just be the opposite scenario of what we have today. Unions are sometimes the answer. They are not always the answer. In fact, the union I'm speaking of has had an injection of new workers that when paired with some of the old, might finally reach the threshold necessary to break the union. I'm hoping so hard that sometime in the next few years I'll be able to see that happen to them.

You expressed your opinion, I accurately quoted it, and I gave my opinion.

How you seem to be backtracking and trying to have it both ways, while insulting me.

You say "It is likely that it would never happen" when referring to your scenario for a path to economic and social justice. I think that justice is inevitable, and if I thought it were impossible, as you are saying, I would have to deny all of history and human experience. Odd to hear someone here say that justice is likely to never happen.

I am not "categorizing" you, by the way, I am responding to your words.

Then you say "it is no less likely then your concept."

Labor unions are not "my concept." Again, that is an odd view of the subject.

People don't strike over bullshit. Striking is hard and difficult for workers. If a business can't negotiate with its workers than its business model is failed and it needs to pack it up.

Sometimes, they do strike over bullshit. It's pretty absurd to say otherwise. It is hard and difficult for the workers, and oftentimes is the result of senior members who pressure others into the vote. Oftentimes, it hurts fellow workers who wouldn't want the strike in a million years, but then are forced into it.

And when I had stated that comment I wasn't referring to strikes at all, so you had quite a narrow interpretation of the comments. The union can hinder the business by allowing lazy ass people with no motivation to continue working and infecting other harder working employees by pressuring them to slow down. The lack of efficiency and output that can arise from such a workforce can have significant effects on the business itself, and is something the business simply has to tolerate due to the unionization. Good people can't be advanced because they aren't senior, bad people can't almost ever be fired, every loophole they can take advantage of is taken advantage of, salaries can grow out of hand for some who have been there for years (such as a pot washer making over 90k) and other things. There are many ways in which bad unions can hinder the business, that is of no fault whatsoever of the business.

Unions aren't the answer if they are to be incorporated into every industry and circumstance. They are only beneficial under the right circumstances.

but then I had to ask myself - how does one begin to organize labor globally when even local efforts toward collective bargaining are received with so much skepticism and hostility?

I can't get past that :(

:hug: trajan

Something in that equation has to give.