Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: Comments
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=25270&mesg_id=25282
25282, RE: Comments
Posted by alek, Sun Apr-08-01 01:27 PM
>-I disagree that poor people who
>take the traditional route to
>success will fail, and that
>their only way out is
>to try to change the

I didn't say that they "will fail," I said that they're "likely to fail," specifically in areas of income, education and security. I think it's a good chance.

>#1. They don't have the resources
>to effect any kind of

Not yet. And you don't need that much, besides the energy to organize (which, judging from the "Justice for Janitors" campaign and the success of the UFW, I'd say they have).

>#2. They don't even know how
>to go about the traditional
>routes of success, they have
>no role models, Mom &
>Dad can't show them. If
>they fail "trying" to go
>the traditional route, it's because
>they don't know how things
>work or how to be

Right. That's one of the main reasons why I said that they'd be likely to fail.

>Trying to change things
>won't work either, because they
>won't know how the "system"

Well, that's optimistic. I think most activists (i.e. "people who are trying to change things") would say that it's just as important to know how you WANT things to work. If not more.

>Middle Class kids grow up to
>be Middle Class because they
>know what to do, they
>just imitate their parents.

That's true. That's not the only reason, though.

>While the poor kid has these
>dreams and no clue how
>to make them come true.

I'd argue that even if the poor kid *does* have a clue how to make his dreams come true, it's still going to be EXTREMELY difficult based on the way things work.

>We don't have a Virtual Caste
>system because being poor doesn't
>give you the opportunies to
>become rich...we have a caste
>system because the poor don't
>KNOW HOW to elevate themselves.

Ouch. It's just my opinion, but I'd recommend thinking that one through some more.

>There is a big difference....the
>opportunities are there...they just don't
>know how to take advantage.

See above.

>The Wealth Gap means that there
>are a lot of opportunities
>to make money, it also
>means that a lot of
>people can't take advantage of
>those opportunities. It doesn't mean
>that the people creating Wealth
>are bad people, taking advantage
>or are somehow lucky...per se...it
>just means that others don't
>even have a chance to
>create wealth themselves.

Well, yes. At the same time, they create that wealth by getting people to buy what they sell. They have to get everybody to do it, but instead of this exchange balancing wealth, it concentrates near the top.

>Organized Labor? Couple of Thoughts:

>Organized Labor rarely has the interests
>of the company at heart,

....yes. It really depends on how you define "the best interests of the company." If you limit those interests to:

- low labor cost
- maximum profit
- maximum flexibility and control

...then yes, organized labor tends to detract from these. If you adopt the FAR OUT notion that a company might want to promote economic justice, prosperity in its community, fair treatment of workers, access to health care, etc., then unions *would* be "in the company's best interests." Of course, this isn't the case, and companies do care only about those three things above. As such, organized labor does tend to be contrary to the company's interests.

>I think workers should have
>rights. I just wish that
>workers would actually have some
>Business sense and think about
>the overall health of the

Yeah. My guess is that "the overall health" of their health care-less family might come before the exact size of their employer's profit margin.

>I get ticked off
>when I hear about GM,
>squelching a technology that could
>help them regain their foothold
>as one of the best
>car makers on earth because
>the unions won't let them.

This makes me laugh. You think GM is good for the American economy? THEY WENT TO MEXICO!! That's how they're trying to regain their foothold. And let's see... New technology = 11,000 layoffs. What do you expect the union position to be?

>I think that if Unions actually
>tried to align their needs
>with those of the Business...they'd
>be more successful.

No wait, THIS makes me laugh.

Business: It'd be really convenient for us if we could pay you all 23 cents an hour.

Union: That sounds good.

Business: No health care, though.

Union: Of course.

Business: Or overtime pay.

Union: Obviously.

Business: And random firings would be really good for us as well.

Union: I'm with you on that.

Business: Also, we'd like you to do twice the work, but it's really become inconvenient to run the trainings, so could you just learn on the job?

Union: By all means. And could you please fire my wife if she gets pregnant?

Business: Wow, it's like you read my mind!


>Right now,
>the businesses only give in
>to them out of fear..not
>neccessarily because it will help

Well, ultimately it will help them, if their alternative is a collective action like picketing or striking. But yes.

>Case In Point: Sometimes, Layoffs are
>neccessary for the overall health
>of the company..downsizing as well.
>But you'll never hear a
>Union admitt that...

That's because the workers are the union and LAYOFFS ARE NOT GOOD FOR WORKERS! Is that really a complex concept?

>I also don't think organized labor
>is going to fix the
>wealth gap, wealth isn't created
>by working for a company...it's
>created by side stuff (investing)
>having your own business...or having
>the position/business sense to exploit
>the company to generate wealth
>through 401ks and stock options.


>Furthermore, proponents of Organized Labor...just want
>the workers to be paid
>more...which isn't always in the
>workers self interests..nor are the
>"workers" always worth that much.

Do you know a single thing about the "proponents of organized labor?" I'm not going to respond to this until you demonstrate even the most rudimentary knowledge of labor in this country.

>No, I feel improving worker/company relations
>and conditions..will do little to
>change the wealth gap. Teaching
>people how to build wealth

Okay, I'll try that.

"Miguel, you've got to learn to INVEST your $6.10 an hour. Build a line of credit with your $300 a month, THEN get yourself a money-market account. Forget child-care, sink it in oil stock."

"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."