Auberon Herbert on Labour and Unions

Phaedrus · Sep 1, 2003

Gary Galles compiles excerpts of Auberon Humbert's classic 1861 work "The True Line of Deliverance."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
On Labor Day, Americans honor the often incredible contributions of its working men and women. But that honor is typically hijacked by unions who portray themselves as representing all American workers and claim that they are largely responsible for the gains workers have made. Those assertions are false. In fact, unions have harmed workers as a whole by their actions, as Auberon Herbert argued.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full story here.

Phaedrus

Oceans11 · Sep 2, 2003

Um...19th century victorian England was a workers eutopia, and goodness knows why millions joined the unions...
The working class just adored living in squalor and disease, glad of the privilege of being paid buttons by factory owners.
Much of the time you were paid in the factorys own buttons, which could only be spent in the factorys' shop.
Aye, them were days.
The bloody unions went and ruined it all.

If a place has decent management, workers dont actually bother about unions.
I have seen it, and worked in a place like that, where you are a part of a wealth creation powerhouse.

Then a shitty US corporation took over and turned 20years work into a place where no-one gives a rats ass. Those that arent joining a union, are leaving.

=========================================

And what does Herbert have to do with reality?
Another self indulgent dreamer in a small privileged world of his own.

As an Englishman, Herbert took a well established aristocratic route in life, including an education at Oxford and a seat in parliament.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Herbert.htm

===========================================

The quakers were a bit more up with reality, and prospered because of that.

http://www.birminghamuk.com/cadburyhistory.htm

==============================================

[This message was edited by eek on September 02, 2003 at 04:04 AM.]

Phaedrus · Sep 3, 2003

eek,

While it is undeniable that exploitation of workers has taken place and continues to take place in the world, the improvement of the condition of workers does not seem to be the overall purpose of labour unions, then or now.

Employee unions which function within a specific company often enjoy a much more favourable rapport with the employer than industry- or sector-wide unions, primarily because none of the strong-arming and very little of the government interference that categorises most labour "negotiations" takes place. But today, as in the time of the rise of Socialism in America, and on back to the 19th century English working classes, the people organising unions seldom seem to have much in mind apart from that which most politicians, clergy, and other demagogues do -- the usurpation of power. Just because they have a popular, and even in some case legitimate, victim to champion, does not make them champions in and of themselves.

Regarding your reference links, I am confused. The Herbert biography paints quite a flattering picture of the man as far as I can tell. The Cadbury history seems disconnected form your comment about the Quakers. Was John Cadbury a Quaker? Does this mean that Quakers are by nature more in touch with reality and prosperous? And you mean this compared to whom?

Not busting your balls; just confused by the Quaker comment. To say one successful Quaker means Quakers are better than another group is rather like saying one psychotic dipshit who calls himself a Christian means that all Christians are psychotic dipshits.

Phaedrus

Skyweasel · Sep 6, 2003

"While it is undeniable that exploitation of workers has taken place and continues to take place in the world, the improvement of the condition of workers does not seem to be the overall purpose of labour unions, then or now. "

Bullshit! People in the past have died for trying to organize, and it still happens, more in the third world than here. There are many instances of people in situations being horribly exploited who managed to organize in spite of continued violence against them, and better their lot. It's the only way they could attain some equity in power with the employers they slaved for. You may sympathize with the exploiters, you may be one for all I know or care. But your history in this case is wrong. Yours is just the same old arrogant ideology of the wealthy - fvck anyone but us who wants a decent life.

Phaedrus · Sep 6, 2003

Posted by Skyweasel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Bullshit! People in the past have died for trying to organize, and it still happens, more in the third world than here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe so. As I clearly said, exploitation has gone on and continues to go on, all over the world, and surely it has lead to violence and even death for some. Not that unions have never committed acts of violence or even murder in the name of their cause.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There are many instances of people in situations being horribly exploited who managed to organize in spite of continued violence against them, and better their lot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
It's the only way they could attain some equity in power with the employers they slaved for.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would point out the obvious fact that there is a world of difference between an "employer" and a "slaveowner." No matter how deplorable the conditions might be, employment is a voluntary condition. Indentured servitude, slavery, etc. are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
You may sympathize with the exploiters, you may be one for all I know or care. But your history in this case is wrong. Yours is just the same old arrogant ideology of the wealthy - fvck anyone but us who wants a decent life.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have my point wrong. What I said was that fair representation of the worker does not seem to be the motivating force behind most labour unions, and I say that because it doesn't seem to be, to me. Nearly every union movement I've seen has had to do with using coercion to force the hand of employers. Employment, again, is a voluntary condition. There are those would argue that a person who is in poverty or in a limited job market would not be able to easily leave a job if there were imperatives in his life such as children or disability etc. which narrow his choices, but whatever happened to playing the hand you were dealt?

Phaedrus

Skyweasel · Sep 8, 2003

I don't want this to become personal, in spite of my earlier anger for which I apologize.

The hands that people are dealt vary widely. I have been in a union that won better conditions for myself and my fellow workers. The reality is that just as there are those who can successfully parlay the hand they are dealt into something better, there are those who are not cut out for entreprenial conquest, etc. And there are surely those who once in a position of ownership, proceed to exploit others as much as possible. These conflicts are nothing new.

My main objection is to the blanket statement about unions. While it may have validity in the case of a giant, corrupt AFL/CIO, etc., the foundation of any union is like any small organism, a business or whatever, that starts with good ideas and intentions and only becomes corrupt when it grows beyond the capacity of strong, ethical individuals to reign in it's rapaciousness. We see this in government, business and all walks of life.

Oceans11 · Sep 8, 2003

The Great Money Trick

Taken from The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist by Robert Tressel
"Money is the real cause of poverty," said Owen.

"Prove it," repeated Crass.

.

=========================================

Actually, I'll pop this up on the main board.
Americans only know socialist stuff as baby eaters and bogeymen.

[This message was edited by eek on September 08, 2003 at 07:28 PM.]

Phaedrus · Sep 9, 2003

Skyweasel
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I don't want this to become personal, in spite of my earlier anger for which I apologize.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't mind personal, but I appreciate the apology.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The hands that people are dealt vary widely.
The reality is that just as there are those who can successfully parlay the hand they are dealt into something better, there are those who are not cut out for entreprenial conquest, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well true, but inability is not a meal ticket. It's the other way around.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
And there are surely those who once in a position of ownership, proceed to exploit others as much as possible. These conflicts are nothing new.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And again, true. But you mention 'blanket statements' in your response, and I think that it is a no-brainer that there are quite a few unfair 'blanket statements' made about employers and corporations in general in today's world than there are about labour unions, consumers' "rights" (the mere term makes me want to puke) groups, industry lobbyists, etc. The people providing the jobs are the only ones out of the aforementioned variety who are actually contributing a measurable something to society, yet it is not through altruistic principle that this contribution is made -- and it is prcisely because the motiviations are not altruistic in nature that they are likely to be lasting contributions.

I do believe that employers should treat their employees well. At one point I had over 300 employees, and I always did my best to treat them as well as possible, given that I recognised the enormous contribution to my net worth they were making.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
... the foundation of any union is like any small organism, a business or whatever, that starts with good ideas and intentions and only becomes corrupt when it grows beyond the capacity of strong, ethical individuals to reign in it's rapaciousness. We see this in government, business and all walks of life.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely true, and this is what I meant by my comment regarding employer-specific unions. You seldom see any stories of major strife between unions which are composed of employees of a single company; their relations tend to be smoother and their negotiations tend to be more fluid and more rapidly resolved. Industry- or sector-based unions seem to hate company unions, as they can lock out huge numbers and can also make the industry union look bad when some aspect of the company union's parent company's operations do not match whatever the industry union is trying to sell to Washington, or to other workers, or to the media. But the reason why company unions work better is because they recognise that if the company goes under trying to meet or fight the union demands, then nobody wins. And too often industry unions just don't seem to get this -- witness the massive 1995 strike by UAW, a strike so devastating that it actually effected the nation's GDP for that year, which started with protests from workers at an Ohio General Motors facility who wanted better compensation and benefits -- workers who were already receiving a compensation and benefits package which totaled $ 43.00 per hour -- that's $ 1,720.00 worth for a forty-hour work week, or $ 89,440.00 per year at a time when the average wage-earning American made about $ 21,000.00 per year. Yet you hear UAW and similar unions go on all the time about the greedy, exploiting corporations.

There certainly are greedy, exploiting corporations in the world, but my feeling is that far too little attention is paid to the greed and exploitation which exists under the guise of the helping hand.

Phaedrus