Enlightened capitalists would say "my, that is exactly what we are doing. working for the good of the general public, and that includes everyone. profits obscene? why we take many risks to bring to American consumers the best quality products available. firing workers? well we have to be productive in this competitive globalized marketplace. "
And so on. ad nauseum. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 3:12 PM To: Ray Evans Harrell; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; Ed Weick; Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Charles Brass Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work Just for purposes of discussion- can we try to think 'outside the box' of capitalism as it exists today, especially in the U.S. Would most of you agree :-) (I don't know the symbol for tongue-in-cheek) that, with all due respect to Harry, it might be possibleto control capitalism so that it works for the good of the general public, including the capitalists? No, they would not be able to make their obscene profits and salaries; but could there be incentives such that creativity would be encouraged, especially since the risks would be reduced? Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > Selma said, > > is it possible to have an economic system in which labor is paid for the > > value of what that labor produces? > > I'm going out on a limb and say that isn't the contract with labor. They > are the hired hands and don't create or capitalize the work. America has > made the choice to not provide benefits through the government so those have > to be negotiated with private companies who assume all the risk. I think > it is more than a little nuts but Americans are into "control" and have a > "God" complex that makes them unable to cooperate much with each other > and you would believe King George still lived in Washington by the way they > demean their representatives. Perhaps it is not tyranny but just > insensitivity > that we all feel and thus the necessity to brutally yell when talking to a > Senator or Representative. Like that Missouri Mule you have to get their > attention first. > > The theory is that those who take the risk "deserve" a profit, within > reason, for their investment and risk. Of course a worker risks whenever > they take one job over another. That is solved by making jobs scarce in > my business. > > The argument is on how much profit the investors, owners and > management deserve. And in how much they can take from a society without > having the society go through the boom/bust constant revolution cycle that > the Chinese Communists were touting at the end of Mao tse Tung's life. > China has many languages and cultures but they basically ARE Chinese and > conceive of themselves as such. The US elite group today in the US > cares only about being American if it is convenient and doesn't cost them > money. They border on if not cross that border into obscenity with their > high salaries and perks beyond what even the Beethoven or Einstein's of the > world could ever imagine. This is IMHO obscene in the profit taking > practices with no social responsibility and a very aggressive "winner take > all" attitude. > > That is why my language, which is always tit for tat, has been bordering on > "Turret's Syndrome" these days. I believe that tit for tat is the only > possible > game scheme that does not destroy the house but they seem content to > echo the old ghetto mentality in Washington when the Blacks burned > down their own houses to protest the death of their leader. It is the > old "Better Dead than Red" mentality that would destroy the world if > they didn't get what they wanted. Or justifying the shooting of children > with the statement "Nits make Lice." That is the Wealthy Republican > "Capitalist" stance today on work. > > Today we also have a confusion in that the Stockholders are considered the > owner/capitalists and that is the way that it is sold. Look at all of > those Ads on TV about someone being an owner because they own stock. > I think that is a stupid metaphor since they are more like citizens in a > private club than owners. The only true owner is the one with 51% of the > stock. > > If no one has that then it is a Feudal government structure with > an Aristocracy and citizens. The small shareholders are the citizens > while the workers are the peasants. That is why the Democratic Government > must be strong enough to control these small corporate countries or the > whole system will revert as happened prior to WW II when Hitler who was a > Socialist Emperor (How's that for an oxymoron? in spite of his refusing to > take the title Kaiser) convinced the most intelligent private citizen on the > planet to sell out and buy into genocide, just like the Americans had in > the 19th century but without the intelligence. That should tell you some- > thing about the worth of "intelligence" but we still scream that the > children > don't have it and blame the schools. Were the Beatles intelligent? No > but they were rich, they didn't murder people and were on the side of > the angels in the social issues and the broke the Knight barrier without > selling out. So much for intelligence. > > Well I have to go teach opera singers. And if I hear another American > say to my face that I could only do that in America or owe it to American > private enterprise then they are in danger of this 61 year old man punching > them in the face. Oops that Turret's is tough stuff. > > REH > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:37 AM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > I didn't mention that, in the midst of all this wonderful mutual respect > and > > employee loyalty and 'fairness',etc. these employees were being > > systematically exploited with very low wages, extremely hazardous working > > conditions, absolutely no retirement benefits of any kind-they worked > until > > they could no longer work and then were left with nothing. > > > > They were grateful for the opportunity to feed their families and have > > protection from the elements. > > > > Now here we come, again, to my perpetual question of Harry and Arthur and > > the rest of you: > > > > > is it possible to have an economic system in which labor is paid for the > > value of what that labor produces? > > > I would love to have some of you tell me how you interpret that question. > > > > Selma > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 8:46 AM > > Subject: RE: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > > > > I also wonder what would have happened if anyone in Ed's company town > woke > > > up one morning and decided to write an essay on deforestation, the need > > for > > > recycling, conservation, saving old growth forest, etc. Might have > found > > > folks a bit less friendly. > > > > > > arthur > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:56 PM > > > To: Ed Weick; Brad McCormick, Ed.D.; Charles Brass > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > It's interesting to hear your description of the benevolence of that > > company > > > because the Amoskeag situation, when they were doing well, was very > > similar. > > > The relationship between the workers, middle management and the owners > was > > > excellent; there was mutual respect; many of the stories told of fierce > > > loyalty on the part or employees; of being treated fairly and honestly, > > etc. > > > etc. etc. > > > > > > However, when trouble came, i.e., too much competition and not enough > > work, > > > instead of upgrading the machinery and/or trying to somehow reorganize > in > > > order to preserve jobs, the owners split the company into a > manufacturing > > > company and a holding company and took $18 million and put it in the > > holding > > > company and the manufacturing company went down the tubes along with the > > > 17,000 jobs. Many of the workers thought they had something to do with > the > > > accumulation of that $18 million and were resentful. > > > > > > "You do your work, you earn your pay"? whose work? whose pay? like Enron > > > employees did their work and earned their pay? Like the Enron executives > > did > > > their work and earned their pay? > > > > > > Selma > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:46 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > > > > > > > Selma, when I was a teenager in the 1940s and 1950s I lived and worked > > in > > > > company town, Ocean Falls, in way up coast British Columbia. It was a > > > pulp > > > > and paper town of some 3,000 in which the company owned everything, > the > > > > houses, the store, the hospital, the schools, the hotel. You name it, > > > they > > > > owned it. While one likes to think badly of capitalists, and many > songs > > > > have been sung about owing one's soul to the company store, it was a > > very > > > > benevolent arrangement. Wages were good, rents were low, and everyone > > was > > > > looked after. The company ran a swimming pool which produced kids > that > > > went > > > > to the Olympics. It guaranteed summer employment, at good rates of > pay, > > > for > > > > all of the kids that went to university, me included. It's high > school > > > > produced some of the best and brightest in British Columbia. That was > > my > > > > experience of a company town. I would not have got the education and > > > > opportunities I had if it had not been for a benevolent capitalist. > > > > > > > > Problem: A few years after I left, Ocean Falls shut down, never to be > > > > repeated. It was taken over by a larger pulp and paper company, and > its > > > > operations were moved to Vancouver Island. No company town. No > > > benevolent > > > > capitalism. You do your work, you earn your pay. That's all. > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > Ed Weick > > > > 577 Melbourne Ave. > > > > Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 > > > > Canada > > > > Phone (613) 728 4630 > > > > Fax (613) 728 9382 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 3:42 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am reading a most fascinating oral history of the Amoskeag Textile > > > Mills > > > > > in Manchester, NH. They were around from about the 1830s to the > 1930s; > > > at > > > > > their peak they were the largest textile mill in the world with > 17,000 > > > > > workers, a million spiindles, etc. There are so many aspects of what > > has > > > > > been discussed here that are manifested in these oral histories. One > > > gets > > > > > what I believe must be a rather complete picture from top management > > > down > > > > to > > > > > the lowliest worker and horizontally across that entire world at the > > > time > > > > > from the apartments owned by the company to the relationships with > the > > > > city > > > > > that was virtually founded by the mill owners, etc. > > > > > > > > > > A wonderful read. > > > > > > > > > > Selma > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charles Brass" > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 3:27 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] The world of work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brad McCormick: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding of pre-Industrial (pre-Enclosure, etc.) life > > > > > > > is a bit different: more like Brueghel paintings of peasants > > > > > > > working-and-playing. Not what I would aspire to, but a lot > > > > > > > better than being an early industrial worker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the stuff a long time ago, so the references are > > > > > > > lost, but a large part of the "moral" rationalization of the > > > > > > > industrial system was that the peasants worked little and > > > > > > > drank/screwed a lot. My understanding is that > > > > > > > peasants worked far fewer hours than early industrial > > > > > > > workers. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't disagree that peasants had their good times, like those > > > Breughel > > > > > > depicts in his paintings, but there were also very bad times. > Being > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > bottom of the European class system prior to the industrial > > revolution > > > > > meant > > > > > > that you could suffer famines, wars, dispossession and general > > kicking > > > > > > around. My own ancestors left Wuerttemburg or the southern > > Rhineland > > > > > > probably in about 1815 or 1820 because the area had overrun by > > > Napoleon, > > > > > had > > > > > > been pillaged blind by contending armies, had suffered crop > failures > > > and > > > > > > starvation and was not a good place to live. Next, they appear to > > > have > > > > > > found themselves in central Germany, near Halle. I have no idea > of > > > what > > > > > > they did there, or how they lived, but when Allexander II of > Russia > > > > freed > > > > > > the serfs in the early 1860s the family migrated to the Ukraine to > > > take > > > > up > > > > > > agricultural work. The conditions under which they lived and > worked > > > > while > > > > > > there proved absolutely miserable and by the 1890s, they'd had > > enough > > > > and > > > > > > started back to Germany. By then central and eastern Europe had > > > > > > industrialized and they wound up living and working in a textile > > > center > > > > > near > > > > > > Lodz, Poland. My grandfather migrated to Canada in 1913, but my > > > > > grandmother > > > > > > and their seven kids remained stuck in one of the war zones of > WWI. > > > > Most > > > > > of > > > > > > them didn't make it to Canada until the later 1920s. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not saying that my family was chronically unhappy. It's > > probable > > > > > that, > > > > > > as it moved around, it's various members had good times and bad, > > > perhaps > > > > > > played music and danced, and probably went to church and commented > > > > > > unfavourably on those who didn't. But everything I heard my > > > > grandparents > > > > > > say when I was a child suggested hard, hard times. Working in the > > > > > textile > > > > > > industry near Lodz was one of their better times because they > could > > > save > > > > a > > > > > > little money, enough for my grandfather to buy passage to Canada, > > and > > > > > > because several family members could get work. My father, who was > > > > small, > > > > > > agile and clever, began work in the textile mill at age seven > > because > > > > kids > > > > > > were needed to crawl into machinery and fix it so that it would > not > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > be shut down. > > > > > > > > > > > > Breughel, who lived in the 16th Century when times may have been > > > better, > > > > > > painted happy peasants dancing. However, he also knew about the > > other > > > > > side > > > > > > of life. To see what I mean, go to: > > http://artchive.com/ftp_site.htm > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > Ed Weick > > > > > > 577 Melbourne Ave. > > > > > > Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 > > > > > > Canada > > > > > > Phone (613) 728 4630 > > > > > > Fax (613) 728 9382 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Futurework mailing list > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
