On Sunday 18 October 2009, justin joseph wrote: > 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."
Err. I am not attacking you (and apologise if it seems so). Yes i really thought you had not heard of the MNS trying to start unions in BPOs and call centers. It may not be pan Indian for the simple reason that, the attempt was a total failure. But yes, it was restricted to Mumbai and Pune and (afaik by another entity to Ghaziabad.) > > >> 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. Collectivizing (work forces) without capital is no (legal) crime at all and wasn't my point either. But in a way far worse as later events showed, where it only morphs into a deadly mob. It killed the existing means (meagre as they were) without an alternative. The unions while collectivising, merely used their strength of numbers, rather than strength of skill. If they would have collectivised skill they would have quickly realised the lack of important ( managerial, finance etc) skills and would have plugged those gaping holes. And maybe some of the "collectivised" industries they were handed over would have flourished. By capital i do not mean merely monetary capital, though in the current context you cant go very far without mobilizing monetary capital. And strange as it may seem highly skilled collectives rarely need someone to lobby for themselves least of all unions. Strange as it seems the capitalistic economies are actually financial collectives, with bulk of the funds coming from small investors (and the source of all the irrational rukus). > 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. So what is preventing them from taking up a Rs.10000/, Rs.20000/- whatever job? Definetly not any law. Cant be the job market? No just bad managements who want to suck poor workers. > 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. Guess what? The unions till date have never struck work to get the labour courts proper infrastructure, so that cases are investigated and resolved swiftly. Who has the time to get out from sitdowns, goslows and showering abuses. Times of India won a case after video recording the filthy abuses and shenanigans of the employees, opposing shifting the ancient printing press in VT to a modern setup in Kandivali. The freed space was to be used for setting up Times bank. An enterprise which would (and did) create several thousand jobs. > > 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. How come?. If they got away with it in a court, it's not illegal. You and I and the unions are not the ones who pass judgement. BTW an individual can approach the labour court. The labour court is very sympathetic to workers, and managements get severely penalised, if they do something without following due procedure. > >> 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. No just go to another shop. If all shops are the same start your own or ask someone to start one. If things are as presumed, the new shop will wipe out the others and become Coffeeday or India cofee house. > > >> 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." The above is quoted out of context. So Alan Greenspan was wrong. Particularly in trying to stimulate the market by lending (the part not mentioned above) to the ones who should not have been given money ( BTW the group of underpaid temps that rarely collectivise, and whom our beloved unionist have a strange revulsion for ). Money that came from another set of people collectivised as the middle class, who gave their money to financial collectives - MFs and Hedge Funds. Now the collectivised middle class is cursing the Fund Managers for lending to the first group. Why? cause this collective of small investors did not want utopia, but high profits, and never thought twice while raking in the shekels the previous 4 years, about what exactly was bringing in high returns. And this raking in of shekels was a global phenomenon, with small investors right across the globe pumping in money not to create utopia, but merely to line their pockets. You see the mobius loop? Putting in regulations might prevent melt downs of the type that happened (however now that every shekel raker is aware, it wont happen anyway, regulation or no regulation, atleast until the memory lasts ) but will not in anyway prevent other types of meltdowns that are not understood (or forgotten ) and will happen in the future. High returns==high Risk. No if's no buts, regulation or no regulation. Analogous to electrical current No amount of regulation can prevent current flows as per the laws of nature without pumping in more energy sucked out from somewhere else. In the case of money it's bailout plan from taxpayer money. OkOK no bailout. What? and let all the small investors and poor home loaners die? In the case of Iceland it was the Government (the central bank) getting high returns for it's citizen, all of whom were totally thrilled by the growth rate. Wonder what you plan to do about such governments. In India it was RBI ( in the past ) which printed money when ever the finance ministry felt like doing so (btw one of the major reasons for price rises). And the recent slow down in India was because RBI curtailed money supply by increasing CRR and SLR limits. Damned if you do and Damned if you dont? More like shooting in the dark. In the same vein high growth=high risk and as counterpoint low growth means condemning the have nots to decades of deprivation. The middle path is not smooth as one would love to believe, but just an average of high peaks and and deep troughs. Those who believe the government PR recieve a shock. Those who dont and read the very fine invisible print may make a lot of money. > > 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. With regulation of illdefined and unknown economic phenomena? Economics and monetary policy is an extremely complex phenomenon, involving governments and markets. Billionaires and companies dont convert their billions to cash and lock it in a vault. It is depoisted with banks and collectives (MFs, Fund Managers, Stock markets etc) who compulsorily invest a substantial portion in (mismanaged ? ) government bonds, and distribute the rest to you and I for a profit and (usually) not to those who cannot repay. Further when some entity "looses" money it does not vapourise, it is now redistributed across a large number of unaccounted entities, where recovery is substantially more expensive than the principal. Depending on laws, it will eventually recoup and get accounted somewhere. The point in space time where it gets accounted becomes prosperous - Swiss bank, Dubai, Mauritius, S'pore, HK. Countries which (i presume) understand the stupidity of regulations. Countries whose governments pretend they know all the answers and therefore pass laws curtailing and criminalising economic activity wind up funding other countries that do not have such laws - capital drain. Countries that do not have such laws also suffer capital drain - Dubai for example. But they recover very rapidly. An almost exact parallel phenomenon is brain drain. While we view any restriction on prevention of brain drain as a curtailment of individual freedom, a corresponding restriction on value generated out of brain is seen as necessary protection (for those without brains? or those with economically / algorithmically / historically / addled brains ? sorry if i seem to sound racist). Freedom does not come in bits and pieces, with differing yardsticks and various costumes to suit the sexiness or anxiety of the hour. You take it warts, risk, opportunity all of it. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
