Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: The Myth of Robinson Crusoe : reply to Sykora Message-ID: <680@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 08:48:14 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxl.680 Posted: Mon Jul 8 08:48:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 06:03:17 EDT References: <670@whuxl.UUCP> <2380076@acf4.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 68 > >Most people would agree that workers should not be subject to arbitrary > >punishment at work without the possibility of lodging greivances. > >The capability to lodge grievances against the caprice of managers > >who simply take a personal dislike to somebody is an important > >*protection* of individual rights made possible by the labor union > >movement. > > The only basis for judging such punishments and grievances is whether > or not they violate the contract of employment. To consider anything > else is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game and > blatantly unfair. I see. So in other words, it would be perfectly acceptable to flog one's workers if this was in the contract? Or to blacklist workers who try to begin unions? Shall we return to indentured servitude? I had thought human rights and decency made quite a bit of progress by *eliminating* indentured servitude. (which is why almost all states have laws regulating any garnishments of wages) Apparently such protections of the individual's rights vs the employer are moot in the Libertarian utopia. > > >These advances were hardly an infringement of freedom but an > >advance towards protecting individual's rights in the very important > >social relation of employer-employee. > > Except of course when the worker had grievances with the union and the > government said that the union is in charge and he has to listen to it. > And when the government said that X had to join the union if he wanted > to work in factory Y, even tho the manager of factory Y was willing to hire > him anyway (or because he wasn't a union member). > Several points: 1)Unions must be approved by 70% of the workers who vote in union qualifying elections. It is possible to hold new elections and some unions have been eliminated from workplaces by such elections, for ill or good. (Most unions are approved by votes of over 90% ) 2)the worker *votes* for his Union leaders and shop stewards. If these leaders do not do their job then the worker can also vote them out of office. While most unions have become quite stodgy a number of unions have changed with the election of reform leaders like Trumka in the United MineWorkers. 3)the owners and managers of factory Y are not elected by *anybody* the worker has absolutely no control over their autocratic rule: *unless* they band together democratically to form a union 4)the *government* says nothing about whether worker X must join the union in factory Y - the workers themselves determine that when they vote to qualify a union to represent them. 5)I find it laughable that you are so concerned about the worker (who has voted for the Union) being forced to join a Union but you are totally unconcerned if the worker is forced by managers to put her/his life at risk every day, to stifle her/his own free expression of opinions at work, and is given no control over how her/his work is done. > >The irony is that Libertarians wish to remove these rights in the > >name of freedom and liberty! > > No, we wish to remove theses special priveliges in the name of freedom and > liberty. > Mike Sykora I see. It is a "special privilege" to be eliminated to allow workers to band together and democratically vote for an organization to represent and defend their interests and individual rights against autocratic management. As I say, I certainly find this view of "freedom" most curious!! tim sevener whuxl!orb