Well, reading the morning Ottawa expose about Candu Nuclear Reactors and our sales, financed by Canadian Taxpayers to military dictators after watching the Nuremberg Trails on TV last night has obviously distorted my sense of reality as I then went to see Bulworth because I had to pick up my 11 year old daughter who was seeing Titanic for the 5th time. Obviously I am losing whatever grasp on reality that I might have had a claim on, I will try and be lucid in responding to this thread. Tom Walker forwarded: This means that when negotiating workers > must take into account a certain number of elements: > 1) compensation must be paid for productivity increases resulting from the > decrease in work time or to changes in the organization of work accompanying > the reduction of work time; Gee, the workers are responsible for finding the productivity increases to pay for their own benefits. It seems to me, that owners have been walking off with the results of the increased productivity of workers in the form of profits for a long time - without any conscious effort to share some of that increased productivity value with the worker. In fact, whenever a Union says, "You are going to lay off 100 workers because you have increased productivity by investment in technology or outsourcing to non union suppliers, the usual benefit to the remaining workers is not increased compensation but an expectation of gratitude that they still have their jobs. > 2) the decrease in the marginal tax rate which, in a progressive personnal > income tax system, makes the after tax income decrease less than the > before-tax income (for example a 10% decrease in before-tax income can > result in a 7%-8% reduction in take home pay; It is brilliant ideas such as this, that continually lowers the amount of taxes the government collects, which causes them to increase tax rates. Everytime a businessman or worker finds a way to defer or not pay taxes, then the net result is that somewhere the government has to make up the money by increasing taxes - or going more into debt. It seems to my simple mind that if all the tax avoidance schemes were eliminated we might have an honest - ie everyone paying a tax rate that is much more reasonable than the one that is sheltering a portion of the population while overtaxing the remaining - not so bright or not so fortunate part of the population who are paying more than their share. > 3) the fact that the reduction in work time can sometimes reduce workers > expenditures tied to their work. For example a four day work week > necessitates less expenditures than a five day work week (transport, > clothes, restaurant, baby-sitting, etc); Now we must not make the mistake of allowing a little hidden benefit to the worker to escape the accounting system. So worker A, working 9 hours for 4 days realizes a hidden benefit in that she/he doesn't have to pay an extra day for day care, that now goes on the table as a benefit to be considered by management as a grant. Where were these happy capitalists when day care rates went through the roof and they asked the worker to stay for unpaid overtime and caused them to pick up extra expenses for being late in picking up their kids? > 4) finally we have to take into account the fact that more time away from > work, to be with the family, to read a good book, to participate in > community affairs or political affairs or just relax is valuable to people. > A lot of people would consider that the price to pay for one day of free > time per week is reasonable if it costs 20$, 30$, or 40$ on their weekly > paycheck . This would have some truth if it wasn't for the fact that for many people, what they are giving up is their disposable income - that little bit left over after taxes and must pay bills like food, mortgage/rent, transportation and a host of other essential expenses. If a person takes home $2000 per month and the must pay portion is $1500, leaving $500 disposable to pay for family time, that good book or gas to going to a community affair is then reduced by $160, it is not just a little amount, it is almost a third of your disposable income. The cost is even more reasonable if the final outcome is more > jobs for the community. Of course this is based on the idealistic notion that somehow the community will then be able to lower its costs which will be passed on to the worker. Somehow, it just never seems to happen. It's hard to think of the "common good" in a self interest economic system. For lower salaried workers of course this position > cannot hold. Unions must protect and increase the purchasing power of low > salaried workers. It's rather hard to do this when the government emasculates labour laws, refuses to raise minimum wage and the free press constantly takes the neo-con position that Unions are the scourge of society. In Ontario, they are even trying to make work mandatory for Welfare under a Workfare scheme that is close to slavery and then legally make it impossible for Unions to organize. Let's cut to the quick here. There is no mercy for lower waged persons because it is by reducing their costs that capital makes their profits. Labour is a cost - therefore reduce wages equals more profits, more profits equal more money to lobby for more beneficial laws to reduce costs. The circle goes round and round. Also the reduction in working time must be an occasion to > convert involuntary part time and temporary employment into full time and > regular employment. The reality is different of course. Let's use lots of part time labour and then we won't have to pay benefits or get involved with dismissal problems if we have to readjust our workforce. Quite frankly, if most business could run their companies on part time help, there would not be one full time employ on staff. > > We think that this way of seeing things, although more difficult and > engaging than the usual "reduction with full compensation" slogan which > hasn't been too successful since the mid 1970's, can be more productive in > the work place. I love these little euphemisms "can be more productive in the work place". A classic example of double talk. It should read, "can be more profitable in the work place" with the profit accruing to the business owner not the labour. >This is more so if the outcome is more jobs. Quantity is not replacement for quality. We can go back to a Greek slave society in which everyone is working but 90% are getting room and board, a little sexual harassment or sent out back for your daily whipping. It means > linking the reduction in work time to changes in the way work is organized > and it means an occasion to democratize the organization of work. It > involves real solidarity (not just discourse) between workers who have a job > and workers who don't. It gives more time for people to engage in community > building and political action. Excuse me for being obtuse. Perhaps the question should be posed as to what is required to have a healthy, well paid, educated workforce with time and interest left over to be involved in the community and political actions needed for a healthy society? Perhaps what we want as human beings is a safe, sane, respectful society in which we can contribute our labour and intelligence towards long term goals that will benefit our children, our environment, and our own lives. Instead, we have a society that seems to work against it's citizens in the workplace, creates problems for our environment, enriches the few at the expense of the many and has no long term goals other than staying in this insane marathon of corporate profits, no matter what the cost. > > Any comments would be appreciated. Well, as you can see, I'm having a bad hair day. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
