On 6/12/06, Gil Skilman rejoins: > [ whaddaboud "piecework"? ] > >> [W]orkers in this case aren't simply contractors, >> engaged by capitalists to produce a given number >> of [say] garments, however they might choose to do >> so, in return for an explicitly stated consideration.
This statement conflates whatever the poster thinks he means by "contractor" with law-significant distinctions (and, for many purposes depending on context, abolition of distinctions) between an "employee" and a "contractor" (bearing in mind, f'r'instance, that persons [s/k/a "employers"] who purchase services from "piece workers" find it often convenient to try to label such a worker as the latter [or, for that matter, as a "principal" or "partner"] to try to evade legislative and related state/federal regulatory protections enacted for the benefit of "employees". > That is, they're not simply selling given labor > services. In particular, they are directed > to work in the specific confines of capitalist > production facilities, where their work activity > is generally overseen by supervisors. Has the poster not heard of the still also pervasive practice of "home work" (acctually done in the worker's home even if and in fact usually paid by the piece) though still endemic especially but not only to garment/apparel and related industries? > I think the answer would necessarily have to do > with limitations in capitalists' ability to stipulate > desired outcomes by contract, and to the extent > these limitations matter, they result in workers > selling their ability to work rather than a specific > set of labor services. Conceivably, there may still be some utility for academic-economic purposes to try to make these sorts of distinctions (though I doubt it). Correlatively, it would be easy -- and for some (e.g., tax effective) purposes, it sometimes also would make practical sense -- to draft what, in actuality, is a an agreement of "sale" of a widget or other tangible property as if an agreement selling a service, at least for law-related purposes. As a practical as distinguished from an abstractedly intellectualized matter, IOW, the "subject" now assigned to this thread is (at best) empty silly.
