"The strike, which lasted more than two months and which defied the assumptions of conservative unions within the American Federation of Labor that immigrant, largely female and ethnically divided workers could not be organized, was successful; a year later, however, the union had largely collapsed and most of the gains achieved by the workers had disappeared."
"Conditions had grown even worse for workers in the decade before the strike. The introduction of the two-loom system in the woolen mills led to a dramatic speedup in the pace of work. The increase in production enabled the factory owners to cut the wages of their employees and lay off large numbers of workers. Those who kept their jobs earned less than $9.00 a week for nearly sixty hours of work."
Nine dollars a week is 198 dollars in 2008 currency. WOW. 198 dollars for sixty hours of slave labor! What a great world of freedom awaits us if we follow the Austrian school's argument! Also, let us not forget that the economies of scale were much smaller than they are now and that innovation in the last 80 years has made products cheaper, which means that 198 dollars BOUGHT A WHOLE LOT LESS.. probably more like 140 dollars worth.. a week.
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_textile_strike
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Austrian School Trade Union Movement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Way to point out people in 1912 didn't have things as good as people in 2008.
Any other enlightening revelations you wish to share?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything "austrian". . .progress caused the mills to need less workers. . .imagine that.
Because this is exactly what will happen under a "free market" economy.
Progress? I hope so.
Regression, actually. Wage gains disappeared with a year; wages at slave-wage levels. Did you even read the article?
In this particular factory
Because progress allowed for new tools which required less labor, and probably less skilled labor, and allowed for cheaper production, allowing for lower prices.
Progress.
I think I already stated that, but it has been all in the context of unionization. You suggest that unionization should stop and ignore the fact that wages can drop to reflect gains in production/economies of scale.
When did I suggest unionization should stop?
Wages may drop with progress, but history shows prices will too.
There is a rock bottom to prices and wages at any one time: It is known as costs.
You suggested unionization should stop when you suggested corporations should not be regulated, when you suggested that corporations should have the right to fire at will, and when you suggested that government should stay out of industrial and other union disputes.
You also suggested it when you stated you are for "free trade agreements". Just like Dad, you spout a bunch of jibberish you don't know the consequences of.
"when you suggested that corporations should have the right to fire at will"
I never said this. Employers should not be able to breach contract. The same applies for employees.
"and when you suggested that government should stay out of industrial and other union disputes."
I don't remember specifically saying this, but yes, the government has no place in these such disputes. But that I want government out of union disputes doesn't mean I'm anti-union, or that I want unionization to "stop".
"Just like Dad, you spout a bunch of jibberish you don't know the consequences of."
While your attacks toward me are rather crude on occasion, I'm OK with that, but that you randomly decide to bring Dad into your dirt is a little weird.
I know the consequences of my "jibberish".
"I never said this. Employers should not be able to breach contract. The same applies for employees."
It has nothing to do with contracts. Employers are not going to sign contracts in the first place if the unions are not backed by government. The pre-New Deal decades proved this.
"I don't remember specifically saying this, but yes, the government has no place in these such disputes. But that I want government out of union disputes doesn't mean I'm anti-union, or that I want unionization to "stop"."
If you believe the government has no place in these disputes and you believe companies should be able to fire at will, you are anti-union.
"While your attacks toward me are rather crude on occasion,"
I have no problems with crudeness on occasion, especially with people who choose to ignore the facts.
"I'm OK with that, but that you randomly decide to bring Dad into your dirt is a little weird. "
It is not random. We had this argument a long time ago. Dad asserted over and over again that capitalism is the same as selfishness. That rabbits are capitalists. Since you seem to be following this basic assertion, I see no reason not to attack his wrong assertion. RABBITS ARE NOT CAPITALISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SELFISH.
I know the consequences of my "jibberish"."
"I know the consequences of my "jibberish"."
No, you don't.
"Employers are not going to sign contracts in the first place if the unions are not backed by government."
Contracts between employers and employees did not exist before governments started backing unions?
"If you believe the government has no place in these disputes and you believe companies should be able to fire at will, you are anti-union."
Only as much as I believe workers should be able to quit at will. Again, neither should be able to breach contract.
"Dad asserted over and over again that capitalism is the same as selfishness."
Yea, you and Dad really do not understand capitalism.
"Contracts between employers and employees did not exist before governments started backing unions?"
They were not needed, because the employers had the power to hire and fire at will. And they did.
"Only as much as I believe workers should be able to quit at will. Again, neither should be able to breach contract."
The act of an employer firing at will and an employee quitting at will is not equal. The weaker workers need food, shelter, and a means of transport to survive. Therefore, quitting because they are being paid shitty wages is not an option individually.
"They were not needed, because the employers had the power to hire and fire at will. And they did."
Lol. Contracts between employees and employers did exist before government began backing unions.
"The act of an employer firing at will and an employee quitting at will is not equal. The weaker workers need food, shelter, and a means of transport to survive. Therefore, quitting because they are being paid shitty wages is not an option individually."
And yet unions have a long history of striking. If an employer looses his workforce, he looses his ability to earn profit, his means of survival. You're far too one-sided.
"Lol. Contracts between employees and employers did exist before government began backing unions."
Yes, between companies and essential, skilled labor.
"And yet unions have a long history of striking. If an employer looses his workforce, he looses his ability to earn profit, his means of survival. You're far too one-sided."
But most jobs are not irreplaceable and thus the employer can fire at will. It is this way in Mexico and China. There is ample evidence of it occurring. I am not lop-sided, it is a fact.
"Yes, between companies and essential, skilled labor."
What better motivation for a workforce to become more skilled. Anyhow, that's also false.
"But most jobs are not irreplaceable and thus the employer can fire at will. It is this way in Mexico and China. There is ample evidence of it occurring. I am not lop-sided, it is a fact."
You're using Mexico and China as examples of a free market system?
"Yes, between companies and essential, skilled labor."
What better motivation for a workforce to become more skilled. Anyhow, that's also false.
"But most jobs are not irreplaceable and thus the employer can fire at will. It is this way in Mexico and China. There is ample evidence of it occurring. I am not lop-sided, it is a fact."
You're using Mexico and China as examples of a free market system?
"What better motivation for a workforce to become more skilled. Anyhow, that's also false."
Please provide a quote or proof that even the lowest worker had a contract before the New Deal.
If everyone becomes skilled, then no one is worth anything. That is the lesson of liberal graduates not being able to get jobs and now engineers not being able to easily find jobs.
"If everyone becomes skilled, then no one is worth anything. That is the lesson of liberal graduates not being able to get jobs and now engineers not being able to easily find jobs."
This is making a grand assumption that liberal graduates are skilled workers.
Engineers probably aren't able to easily find jobs right now because the economy is tanking. Show me an out of work engineer in China, please.
Without concern for the context as I didn't read the entire website, but I found the following
"The steel workers’ contract, tied to a sliding scale wage based on the price of 4 x 4 standard Bessemer steel billets, expired in 1892."
from http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~mk247899/info-pub.htm
"This is making a grand assumption that liberal graduates are skilled workers."
No, you are wrong. It is implicitly assuming that liberal graduates once got jobs easily, before the market was flooded with increased enrollment and new universities.
"Engineers probably aren't able to easily find jobs right now because the economy is tanking. Show me an out of work engineer in China, please."
Ah, I think the job market is worse there than here.
"Without concern for the context as I didn't read the entire website, but I found the following"
I would try thinking and reading next time. Those workers were militants ready to use violence to get their way, one of the strategies you are against. Moreover, they lost in the end, even though they used violence, which means a certain amount of government protection is needed.
"before the market was flooded with increased enrollment and new universities."
Yes, the market provided to proper number of liberal graduates, and after government loans, which allowed to whole bunch more people to take liberal arts degrees, now there are too many liberal graduates for the jobs which demand their services. Government subsidization is grand.
"Ah, I think the job market is worse there than here."
They have 3% unemployment.
"I would try thinking and reading next time. Those workers were militants ready to use violence to get their way, one of the strategies you are against. Moreover, they lost in the end, even though they used violence, which means a certain amount of government protection is needed."
The point is that they had a contract before the new deal.
"Yes, the market provided to proper number of liberal graduates, and after government loans, which allowed to whole bunch more people to take liberal arts degrees, now there are too many liberal graduates for the jobs which demand their services. Government subsidization is grand."
Either way, the point is that an increase in the supply of a specific type of worker leads to a decrease in the value of that worker.
"They have 3% unemployment."
urban = 4.6
rural migrany = 15.3
"The point is that they had a contract before the new deal."
Without violent worker strikes there will be no contracts that favor workers, and if there are contracts they will only benefit the employer. Contracts in China and Mexico prove this. Workers do not sign contracts. The company they work for does, which means that company can fire at will.
Context means everything, Josh. Contract work usually only appears in strong union areas where the work is vital. You espouse a non-violent philosophy, which means companies will not be forced to sign contracts. There may have been contracts then, but if the "non-violent" shit and "non-government" shit you believe in is followed, there definitely won't be. At least, no contracts that favor the workers. This is what I mean when I say you are anti-union.
"Either way, the point is that an increase in the supply of a specific type of worker leads to a decrease in the value of that worker."
Duh.
"urban = 4.6
rural migrany = 15.3"
Please reference.
"Without violent worker strikes there will be no contracts that favor workers, and if there are contracts they will only benefit the employer. Contracts in China and Mexico prove this. Workers do not sign contracts. The company they work for does, which means that company can fire at will."
1. the contract I referenced wasn't a violent rebellion
2. why would workers sign a contract that is doesn't help them, are you saying workers are stupid?
3. China and Mexico are not free markets. You know those corporations have government support.
"This is what I mean when I say you are anti-union."
No, you're saying I'm anti-government and anti-violent, unions are fine. You act like its a bad thing if workers strike violently (which is it), however, what is it when government comes in and backs the unions? Its the same thing, only instead of the workers holding the guns its the government. No matter what, the individuals that have earned the capital they are trying to utilize are getting robbed.
I'm no anti-union, I'm anti-physical coercion.
"1. the contract I referenced wasn't a violent rebellion."
4 workers and two strike breakers dies. If that is not a violent strike, I don't know what is.
"2. why would workers sign a contract that is doesn't help them, are you saying workers are stupid?"
No, I am saying that workers need to eat and when there is no other choice than a slave wage job, they have to eat.
"3. China and Mexico are not free markets. You know those corporations have government support."
True, they are state capitalist run governments. The number of corporations there sucking at the authoritarian tit is not astonishing at all. It is only astonishing to pie-in-the-sky pro-capitalist idealists like yourself.
"No, you're saying I'm anti-government and anti-violent, unions are fine. You act like its a bad thing if workers strike violently (which is it),"
Me, I think it can be good or bad, but I think that it has to be an option.
"however, what is it when government comes in and backs the unions? Its the same thing, only instead of the workers holding the guns its the government."
The government is the result of people, of democracy. And the government is bigger. ;)
"No matter what, the individuals that have earned the capital they are trying to utilize are getting robbed."
You call it what you fucking want to call it, but it will lead to 5900 purchasing power for everyone in the long-run.
"I'm no anti-union, I'm anti-physical coercion."
Those who are anti-physical coercion in all circumstances are anti-union. You can't say that you want tigers to survive in the wild when you have pulled all their teeth and claws out before sending them back into the jungle from the zoo. Nope, that sort of idea is pure stupidity.
Post a Comment