28775: Pierre (Reply): Durbam 20719 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Kawonabo1500@aol.com

Let's be clear Lance to begin with! We are thinking from opposite viewpoints:
mine, a working-class viewpoint, and yours, a bourgeois viewpoint. These are
2 irreconciliable viewpoints no matter how much you go to great lengths to try
to placate the two.
           First, are the workers in your company unionized? If not, why? If
yes, is the union independent of management? Why do you see workers who
disagree with you as problems? This fact doesn't fit well with your previous
statement that "of course workers have every right to negotiate better terms 
and
conditions of employment with whomever they
are working for."
    By your own admission, you have never been to the Free Trade Zone on the
DR border. Therefore, you do not know under what conditions the workers of
CODEVI are working in the jobs provided by Grupo M. What makes you think the
workers share your happiness with Grupo M?
   When you say, "Profitable business[es] have the resources to pay better,
and are more likely to do so", where in the world does this happen? That is not
most workers' experiences with capitalists around Planet Earth.

        "Any employer who fails to recognize that his employees are a vitally
important part of the business has got a problem.  However, most
companies, and certainly all successful companies, are aware of the
importance of their employees and will go to some length to keep them
happy."
The problem is not that capitalists fail to recognize the vital importance of
workers. They know very well that they are nothing without workers. The
problem is that they exploit those workers and expect them to be happy to have 
a
job no matter how bad the conditions of work.
 "Similarly most workers everywhere appreciate that fact their employer is
operating under some constraints."
    Most workers everywhere are forced to accept the capitalists' claims that
their companies are operating under constraints which are false claims most
of the times.

"Some, however, are simply unable to see themselves on the same team as
management, and in my experience those are the workers most likely to create
problems.  My guess is that Mario Pierre, a self-proclaimed “worker 
(himself)”
would probably fall in that category.  Why is that?"
        Certainly, some workers see through the capitalists' bluffs after
many years of being duped, take a stance, and get ready to take action. You see
this as, "create problems".

"Unlike Mario, I see the primary struggle not as one between worker and
employer, but rather as a struggle for both of us to keep our company’s
customers satisfied."
        In reality, the primary struggle is between exploiter and the
exploited. The illusion of company family after a while breaks to pieces as
exploiters get greedier.

“That is to say, I am more interested in expanding the pie rather
 than in trying to figure out a better way to divide up the existing pie.”
         The hard truth is usually that as the pie expands, the workers’
share keep getting smaller and smaller in the name of “operating 
constraints”.

“Mario probably feels that a consumer boycott of Levi-Strauss (Grupo M’s
customer) is a perfectly legitimate way of fighting for worker’s
rights.  Whether that is effective is, at best, a very questionable
proposition.  What it does do is upset your key customer, while
simultaneously setting management against employee.  Not smart.”
         Lance, why go there? I have never heard of any consumer boycott
appeal of Levi-Strauss neither in Haiti nor in the United States. Let the 
workers
of Grupo M decide how they want to fight for their rights. It is not your
place to tell them how best to effectively fight for their rights.

“Enterprise, the car rental company, says it best:  "If you take care of
your customers and employees, the bottom line will take care of
itself."  Time and again our company in Haiti has worked Saturdays,
Sundays, night shifts, you name it, to meet deliveries for desperate
customers.  That is our focus, and all of our workers know it.
Similarly, we are all on the same team and everyone takes a tremendous
amount of pride in a job well-done.  The assumption and reasonable
expectation of all employees is that as the pie gets bigger, we may
each get a larger piece of it.”
        The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How open are you to have
Independent Collective Bargaining for the workers at your company? Again, would
you tolerate the functioning of a Union? How do you take into account female
workers who are single mothers working such drastic schedules?

“There is a competing interest, of course, and that is what percentage
of any profit is re-invested in growing the business.  We tend to
re-invest a lot and in fact, have never paid a dividend.  As a result,
we have a fairly stable business with many customers.  Had we elected
to maximize workers’ salaries from the beginning, we probably would
have pleased Mario Pierre, worker.  But we would be employing 30 people
instead of 500.  Salaries might be slightly higher, but with a slimmer
customer base, job security for all (management and worker) would be
much less.  As it is, our growth over the last 20 years, while
certainly not phenomenal, has provided room for internal promotions.
Almost all supervisors started out as workers, and one key manager (who
has since finished her college education) started out soldering parts
for $2 a day.”
            As a bourgeois, you have the prerogative to invest capital for
value-added and profits. The workers have a right to fight for better working
conditions and better salaries to face rising cost-of-living. If one worker in
the last 20 years finally made it through your bottleneck internal promotion
system – and after a college education - that does not leave much hope for 
the
other 499. Don’t try to be derisive!
             The key idea is to respect the right of workers to organize a
union to negotiate the terms of work in a binding contract. That’s the bottom
line.

Mario Pierre


In a message dated 7/25/2006 9:41:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
corbetre@webster.edu writes:
Lance Durban <lpdurban@yahoo.com> responding to Mario Pierre's reply
about exploitation of labor writes:

Certainly organized labor has played an important, positive roll in the
U.S. and other countries, and of course workers have every right to
negotiate better terms and conditions of employment with whomever they
are working for.  I’ve got no problem with any of that, and I am glad
to see that the Grupo M factory is apparently still providing job for
Haitians up on the border.  While there certainly are employers in
Haiti and elsewhere who underpay and overwork their employees, I have
never been to that free zone up on the DR border so have no idea if
Grupo M would fall into that category.  However, my guess is that
"exploited" workers (to use Mario’s term) are more often than not found
in businesses that are struggling to survive themselves.  Profitable
business have the resources to pay better, and are more likely to do
so.

Any employer who fails to recognize that his employees are a vitally
important part of the business has got a problem.  However, most
companies, and certainly all successful companies, are aware of the
importance of their employees and will go to some length to keep them
happy.   Similarly most workers everywhere appreciate that fact their
employer is operating under some constraints.  Some, however, are
simply unable to see themselves on the same team as management, and in
my experience those are the workers most likely to create problems.  My
guess is that Mario Pierre, a self-proclaimed “worker (himself)” would
probably fall in that category.  Why is that?

Unlike Mario, I see the primary struggle not as one between worker and
employer, but rather as a struggle for both of us to keep our company’s
customers satisfied.  That is to say, I am more interested in expanding
the pie rather than in trying to figure out a better way to divide up
the existing pie.  Those who concentrate on the latter often find that
their “pie” has disappeared (witness Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, two
airlines notorious for their terrible service to Haitian passengers,
but whose unions were quite energetic in demanding more of the company
pie).

Mario probably feels that a consumer boycott of Levi-Strauss (Grupo M’s
customer) is a perfectly legitimate way of fighting for worker’s
rights.  Whether that is effective is, at best, a very questionable
proposition.  What it does do is upset your key customer, while
simultaneously setting management against employee.  Not smart.

Enterprise, the car rental company, says it best:  "If you take care of
your customers and employees, the bottom line will take care of
itself."  Time and again our company in Haiti has worked Saturdays,
Sundays, night shifts, you name it, to meet deliveries for desperate
customers.  That is our focus, and all of our workers know it.
Similarly, we are all on the same team and everyone takes a tremendous
amount of pride in a job well-done.  The assumption and reasonable
expectation of all employees is that as the pie gets bigger, we may
each get a larger piece of it.

There is a competing interest, of course, and that is what percentage
of any profit is re-invested in growing the business.  We tend to
re-invest a lot and in fact, have never paid a dividend.  As a result,
we have a fairly stable business with many customers.  Had we elected
to maximize workers’ salaries from the beginning, we probably would
have pleased Mario Pierre, worker.  But we would be employing 30 people
instead of 500.  Salaries might be slightly higher, but with a slimmer
customer base, job security for all (management and worker) would be
much less.  As it is, our growth over the last 20 years, while
certainly not phenomenal, has provided room for internal promotions.
Almost all supervisors started out as workers, and one key manager (who
has since finished her college education) started out soldering parts
for $2 a day.

Lance Durban