On 7/8/06, Walt Byars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure what you are saying. My point is that it could be argued ... that for each specific act of concrete labor, the worker can choose whether to "exchange" his concrete labor for the wage (of course, this may carry some legal penalty for breaking the contract). Is this correct? Does it contradict the idea that LP is what is sold?
the problem is that the wage (i.e., a structure of rewards and punishments) has already been agreed to when a worker sells his or her labor-power to the capitalist for a specific period of time at the point that the wage bargain was agreed upon. Full contracts that cover all contingencies are impossible given uncertainty, lack of information, etc. Instead, you see the worker _submitting to the authority_ of the employer. Now, it's true that a worker may be rewarded for extra work, high-quality work, etc. But these rewards usually come in the form of bonuses, which are not guaranteed ahead of time. (Nothing is guaranteed, except in NC models.) That is, a worker typically can't say "I will do this extra work if you pay me this extra amount." It's not a market inside the firm. Over time, if bonuses (boni?) and pay should be in line with the quality & quantity of a worker's work to the extent that market forces apply. People would leave jobs if they feel that they're stiffed -- as long as the cost of job loss to them isn't too high. Even if the cost of quitting one's job is negligible, there are other forces at work which would limit market forces. First, the impact of bonuses often have their effect _relative to_ the bonuses received by other workers. That is, if no-one else is receiving a bonus, then even a small bonus may be seen as sufficient. Of course, most firms keep this information secret from employees -- except when it affects them personally. But the fact that "no one else is receiving bonuses" should be easy to discover if it's true. The fact that relative bonuses are what matter mean that the bonus/work ratios (if they could be measured) will differ radically between companies. Second, there's politics within the office or other kind of workplace. People in charge reward their allies and punish their enemies in political games, no matter what the quality and quantity of their effort. Those things are judged subjectively, anyway, so the "quality of one's work" may reflect the supervisor's political goals. Often payment is non-pecuniary, sometimes in the form of greater political power with the workplace. This kind of thing is non-transferable between workplaces and non-commensurable. -- Jim Devine / "It was the mystical dogma of Bentham and Adam Smith and the rest, that some of the worst of human passions would turn out to be all for the best. It was the mysterious doctrine that selfishness would do the work of unselfishness." -- G. K.Chesterton.
