Carrol wrote:
The criticism of "high-paid" workers (who ARE working-class, not part of the bourgeosie) introduces a moralistic element into thinking about class. That is disastrous. Higher wages for already high-pay workers DOES NOT effect in any way the wages or benefits of poorly paid workers. It corrupts consciousness to say or hint that it does.
================================ You're right, of course.
But ask the hostile critics within the left and the labour movement whether they favour the right to unionize and bargain collectively of college-educated employees employed in the public and private sectors - the so-called "professional" stratum - and they will almost unanimously concede that they should have that right and oppose state laws which deprive them of it. This, I've found, is usually the most helpful way to clear up any confusion about whether these millions of workers belong to the "bourgeosie" or not. You don't need to have union or political consciousness to be part of the working class, and it is not the case, in any event, that the least skilled tend to be more advanced in these areas than the most skilled. I wonder whether Leigh would agree. By the way, downward or upward pressures on pay and benefits on one group of workers do tend to affect other groups. Workers, especially union members, habitually compare their pay movements to others in their workplace and industry, and employers are required to pay attention to maintaining "pay relativities" as a means of retaining and recruiting labour, the demand for each occupational group being roughly equal. So when high-paid workers do receive higher wages, to use your example, it does stimulate the demand for matching increases lower down, and the possibilities for obtaining these.
