On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:30 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2009, justin joseph wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:09 PM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thursday 15 October 2009, Amol Hatwar wrote: >> >> ** My Comments Inline ** >> >> >> >> >> The aim of trade left unions are improve the living conditions of >> >> >> the >> >> >> workers and getting their needs met. >> >> > >> >> > Dont make me laugh. Personal experience of living thru the violence >> >> > and misery >> >> > caused by unionism because they have a complete lack of >> >> > understanding (or >> >> > atleast their actions show such a lack) of how economics works, >> >> > showed me >> >> > otherwise. To give you a few examples L & T, the mill strikes, small >> >> > industry >> >> > unrest in ghatkopar and vikhroli, National Rayon Corp. Ambivli, Amar >> >> > Dye >> >> > Chem, Century Rayon Kalyan, Several factories in Ambad Nasik, Bush >> >> > and >> >> > Murphy India, Mukand Iron and steel, Kamani Engineering, Siemens >> >> > Kalwa, >> >> > Premier automobiles, GKW Bhandup, Godrej etc. >> >> >> >> Unions are good, management needs to be kept in check every once in a >> >> while. But the way thing perpetrated in all the above examples were >> >> bad. As they say, too much of anything is bad. >> > >> > Not at all. Unions arise not where there is injustice (with one ironical >> > exception that i know of), but where there is a fast buck to be made. >> > Thus if an industry is doing "well", the union (worker) will demand a cut >> > of the >> >> There are lot of industries(IT for one) that are doing well and where >> there are no Unions. > > You may check out last years (or was it year before last) attempt by MNS to > unionise an already well compensated workforce. Strange that you never hear > of union or benefits for the temps manning the garbage dumps and cleaning the > sewers, or the 100s who converge 8AM at nakas as masons, brick layers, > painters, hamals. Do step out of the ivory tower now and then.
You wrote, "Not at all. Unions arise not where there is injustice (with one ironical exception that i know of), but where there is a fast buck to be made." and I contested that with relevant *context*. Now you mention MNS, which is a non entity in the pan India context to back up your claim and then you divert by attacking me by stating I did'nt hear of things, this you have conveniently assumed to make up your personal argument. Like you said " Stop getting personal. It makes people think you have no logical args left." > >> You seems to think of workers as highway robbers who are waiting in the >> dark to rob the profit making industrialist, there are voices in very >> employer organization >> including NASSCOMM that spread this myth continuously(Union == >> Industry collapse). > > I think exactly that of external Union managements. The examples i gave were > of the most highly paid employees in the country. There were a few internal > unions that were good AND a few managements that were terrible. Like the big bang, now there is suddenly a "few" good "internal Unions". > However without exception the unions failed to reform managements that were > bad, and only succeeded in shutting down all unionised companies or getting > kicked out. The union owners of course walked away into the sunset. The > workers were left starving. Even when they were owner managers, with hughe > write offs on loans etc. the unionised workers failed to keep afloat going > concerns. > > >> A business exists for the sole purpose of profits. It is only natural >> that to counterbalance >> one sided interests the employees collectivize, there is nothing >> unnatural in it. > > Collectivise, collect your capital and start your own, which was ofcourse not > possible in the past, but is exactly how it happens now. This idea is subjective to you, there is nothing illegal in collectivizing without owning capital and as employees. Even assuming we start our own, it recursively follows that there is nothing illegal in our employees collectivizing, that is the point here. > >> Some >> places for obvious reasons the industrialist will oppose this move >> tooth and nail, like >> we recently saw in the jet pilots strike where the management >> illegally terminated >> pilots who had merely exercised their constitutional rights. Because the >> pilots were united they stood their ground and the management had to take >> roll back their illegal decision, which would not have happened otherwise. >> Every tom, dick >> and harry here knows that the present recession has caused a situation >> where to maintain >> their rate of profitability a lot of industries are resorting to >> unconstitutional measures which >> are outright illegal. One which is very often seen is to forcefully >> ask the employee to resign, >> we see this happening with regularity in the IT industry. There is no >> unity in the employees >> in these sectors and hence no counter balance and hence these enforced >> resignation >> is continuing, the Industry calls this by the fancy name "involuntary >> attrition" and because >> of confusion created by people like you, the Industry captains have >> the audacity like for >> example NASSCOMM chief saying in an event organized by BJP IT cell in >> bangalore that >> the IT industry will continue to be a "Net hirer" meaning simply that >> they will continue >> to fire whom they want and intake whom they want at prices they seem >> fit, just like in >> the old day slave markets. >> > > So by your logic it is perfectly okay for an employee to leave but not at all > ok for one to be removed. And it is perfectly alright for one person to > demand more, but not at all for another. And pray what is the limit we set? > The minimum wages act and an opposite the maximum wages act? Go to bhyander > in the stainless steel utensil ghettos. Check out the value chain. Hopefully > you will understand how different the reality is. Or the Milk tabelas, > formerly located in Jogeshwari- Goregaon. Reality is not so difficult to understand when workers in karnataka ask for 6000rs minimum in rest of karnataka and 10,000 in bangalore as minimum wage and the police beat them up black and blue. The point is adherence to laws like the Industrial Dispute act for example. My logic is the illegality in the actions in forcefully asking people to resign. And you seem to suggest free market as your logic, if am not wrong. > > If the market provides the same skill at a lower price why the hell will you > hire at higher price?. And being hired last year does not make your job your > birthright over the guy who grads this year you see. In exactly the same way > that IBM /RH/ M$/ Cisco whoever decides to hire / contract Indian IT > personnel. Being employed in the USA at 10 times the Indian wage does not > make it the US employees birth right. Your prescription is exactly the type > of protectionism that got us into a mess. Protecting jobs, requires > protecting industries (and the industrialist you love to berate). Very nice > for a few years. but it always comes back to bite, with workers getting > bitten the worst. Then the companies should legally contest act's like the Industrial dispute act and work within the boundaries of laws and not become laws themselves. Instead of doing that and arguing in the courts, they do things that are outright illegal and get away with it. > >> Like Obama said, we need to see employees who are fired not as mere >> statistics but >> as people, who have families dependent on them. In the IT industry >> around 10% of >> employees have been removed, forced to resign(illegal). > > The saying goes "put your money where your mouth is". Start an enterprise and > make policies that you espouse. Everyone will follow. There is at least one > Company that is employee owned and managed Carl Zeiss Jena. But one company > does not a summer make. Wrong logic, one need not do that. so if one talks of right at workplace then one is supposed to start an enterprise and make such policies, difficult logic to digest. Its like the shopkeeper when asked for unadulterated tea replying saying one is always free to buy a tea estate. > >> But off course if and when there will be voices raised against these >> and many other practises >> people like you > > Stop getting personal. It makes people think you have no logical args left. getting personal does not mean pointing out what you are doing. > >> will accuse employees as robbers after a fast buck. >> Latest examples like the >> Jet pilots strike clearly show that this is not the case, their action >> was a reaction to illegal >> management steps. >> >> Anyways, I am an employee and don't have all the time in the world to >> continuously argue. >> I have work to do, in between which it is a struggle to visit colleges >> and talk to people and >> spread the free software word. In the mean time people who have hired >> labour and have >> lot of free time can go on endlessly accusing workers on behalf of >> their tribe interests through e-mails. >> I like to see these anti worker mails in fosscomm, because thats the >> beauty of the free software idea, >> it breaks the system from inside(the future becomes suddenly "open") >> if you understand what I mean. > > Precisely the reason why one should breakout as an entrepreneur. FLOSS > provides a unique opportunity. Yes it does provide this opportunity, but that does not solve the question we are debating. Its like saying, if you are not free here then go live elsewhere. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union >> >> If you have facts and stats to claim what you are saying, edit >> wikipedia about why you think >> Unions arise. > > Read about the examples i gave. Or provide some good examples to bolster your > argument. I mentioned the wiki entry does not reflect your examples, so once you put up your examples we might debate it there. > >> Maybe someday I will read enough of Ayn Rand and become like her >> pupils, but not one >> of these days where it is clear to anyone who bothers to see what has >> happened to the >> economy because of unregulated(government control) over business >> houses, maybe she > > May i suggest reading books on economics, marketing, hot money etc. facts as > is presently known rather than crappy fiction. Thats the whole point, what caused this melt down is crappy unregulated fiction which was sold as solid reality which has now become "shock and disbelief". From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan "In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief."[23] Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”[64] Greenspan admitted fault[65] in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected." > > Much as we all love utopia, monetary equality is unlikely for the next couple > of centuries. Particularly with human beings always wanting to be one up on > someone else. The Ideas is to accelerate that process and reduce that time frame down from couple of centuries by whatever margins possible. > > -- > Rgds > JTD
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
