On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Blair Sandler wrote: > I'm having a deja vu: in their "job security" agreement with GM, the CAW > agree to let GM cut jobs if (1) productivity increases; (2) technology > changes; (3) market share declines; or (4) a product line is discontinued. > It's not clear to me what the CAW gained, especially since GM is also > allowed to get rid oftwo parts plants they wanted to sell. > > Maybe I just don't get this process, but time and time again I see unions > making various sorts of concessions in exchange for "job security" promises > of one sort or another that, as far as I can tell, don't amount to a hill > of beans. It seems as if, no less than corporations are alleged to do, > unions take a very short-term view, protecting temporarily the status of > existing workers at the cost of the union and workers' long-term power. Am > I just wrong about this and in fact unions are winning significant > concessions from corporations regarding long term job security for workers, > or are these various promises on the part of the corporations little more > than rhetorical dressing so the unions can save face? > > On the other hand, CAW workers got health and some other benefits for > same-sex partners. > > Blair > > > > > Blair Sandler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The labor aristocracy in both the U.S. and Canada is, in general, committed to social democracy, a trend which ideologically disarms the working class, the most multicultural and multiracial segment of our society. In many ways it is a source of defeatist sentiment as well as a major center of working class hooliganism. As the section of society which is bribed by the ruling class (with super-profits from super-exploitation), the labor aristocracy cannot move beyond a "theory" of concessions. They are conditioned to begging the bourgeoisie instead of making demands and setting the agenda. Basically, the labor aristocracy fails to operate according to a theory of inviolable rights. The labor aristocracy, along with big business and government form what may be called the ruling triumvirate. This ruling triumvirate is blocking the path of progress to the society. GM, like all monopoly capitalists, regards workers as wage slaves and incidental to production and making maximum capitalist profit. They want the unquestioned right to do as they please and they certainly do not want strikes that are not sanctioned by them. The issue which must be addressed is why are workers, and the economy as a whole, held up for such ransom by the monopoly capitalists and what is to be done about it. If this problem is not tackled then workers will find themselves fighting endless battles in an attempt to just hold on to what they have. The workers themselves must bring forward the plan to create an economy which serves the needs of the broad masses of the people. Workers must not submit to the illusions spread about the so-called easy and peaceful path of social democracy. The labor aristocracy is not interested in revolutionary class struggle. This is why the so-called "gains" made by workers do not add up to, as you say, "a hill of beans." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
