I work in a unionized setting, so, it is not necessary for me to adopt the
goals of the company I work for. However, it seems that non-union workers,
especially those on the fast track up, do need to adopt company goals. I
still think, though, that non-profits require a dedication which is not
required of non-management employees in profit making enterprises.
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Izurieta)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-10-29 03:25:59 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:6987] Fwd: Re: exploitation in progressive
organizations? (was re:aiusa)
> 2. (...) to have the same goals as the organization,
> something profit making businesses do not expect. As a plain old worker in
a
> company, you are expected to give a certain amount of labor per dollar, but
> not necessarily have the same goals as the CEO.
Sure?????
I certainly agree with Maggie's recent postings on this issue, which
only helps to emphasize the need that folks in the 'left' keep
*always* in mind, that i) we need power to get through to a better world
and that ii) power is not 'mine', but belongs to (not only relies on)
the unprotected and exploited.
Me, as Maggie, have seen it very often
(though not always, of course, I am not a pessimistic...)
that 'politically correct' folks, as soon as they get a bit of power,
they forget (or close an eye to) both i) what is this power for and
ii) to whom this power belongs..
BUT, I wouldn't dare to say that private corporations and the
capitalis society as a whole does not ask their workers to adhere to
the goals and values of the corporation/society... Of course they
do!! Maybe, there are other kind of experiences..., but is that the
'common pattern'??? I mean, also for plain workers, as subtle the
interioration of values as it may be, it does exist.
And, moreover, plain and not plain workers who do not share the
values and goals, who do not repeat 'we' when they are referring to
the organisation they work for, who do not conceed a great deal of
idolatrisation to their bosses, who do not manifest that they are
'glad' to get their income thanks to the jobs offered by the
organisation, who do not dress as expected,
who do not 'socialize' following the norms of behaviour, etc., etc.,
they are little by little marginalised, and eventually either they
are fired or at the end they resign out of exhaustation... (the
latter, if I may say, is the recurrent experience of my wife
over the last five years or so...)
What makes a difference, and I understand that is Maggie what
was implicitly referring to in #2 of her last posting, is that in a private
(or at least non-non-profit) organisation it is
more straightforward -and immediate?- to unionise.
And *if* the union succeeds in represeenting the workers, and *if*
the union does not end up patronising and adopting the same values
of the organisation, *then* the plain worker can be more
independently minded.
But that independence of mind is -for the very little I know-
becoming more and more scarse... One more thing that adds to the
challenge we have ahead.
Salud,
Alex.
>
Alex Izurieta
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
Tel. 31-70-4260480
Fax. 31-70-4260.755
4260.799
