28780: Verteuil (reply) Re: 28775: Pierre (Reply): Durbam 20719 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Patrick de Verteuil "pdeverteuil@yahoo.com"

It does not appear necessary or inevitable that viewing a problem from
different perspectives (Middle class or working class) should bring one to
different conclusions. Maybe we should start by laying out broad objectives:
should one be looking out for the individual or the national interests; the
interests of one particular group of workers or the interests of the
(unfortunately) vast majority who have no jobs at all.
If the employer can find ten (or a hundred) replacements for any
dissatisfied worker the union is reduced to playing the role of the spoiler.
Haiti's problem is not that some (or all) workers are abused but rather the
dismal fact that the large majority have no employers to exploit them. If
jobs were the norm (as they are in the developed world) and unemployment the
exception, then collective bargaining and unions would make sense as the
negotiations would take place between relative equals. Hence I believe that
right thinking people should at this stage be attempting to create more
jobs, not better jobs. It is probably better for you to see your brother
hired than for you to get a raise as you are probably carrying your
unemployed brother and his family on your back. If you are a member of the
minority "employed" you are presently among the privileged.
The state passes laws which it should work hard to enforce. These laws say
that the employer must pay a minimum wage, must give paid notice, must give
paid holidays, may not strike or sexually abuse his workers etc. etc.
If I am still around when work becomes the norm rather than the exception I
will argue in favor of unions and collective bargaining: until then the only
purpose they serve is to provide work for the union organizers.