j
On Wednesday, January 9, 2002, at 12:57 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>> been following the longshoremen conflict in washington state?
>>
>> "Average pay for members of the International Longshore and Warehouse
>> Union (ILWU) ranges from $105,278 to $167,122, depending on the job
>> category. Part-time workers on the docks can earn as much as $70,000 a
>> year. (((part-timers!!!)))
>> . . .
>> "The shippers group also says they would protect the money in the
>> longshoremen's 401(k) savings plans and provide training for new jobs
>> on the docks."
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64399-2002Jan4.html
>>
>> are those people still "proletariat"? "working class"? or are they
>> "capitalists"? "bourgeoisie"? if they save their money (in a savings
>> account or a 401(k)) or spend it like good consumers? or both?
>>
>> just wondering.
>>
>> maybe, as carrol says, "borderline cases make very bad class analysis"
>> because any notion of class that can either be built on or destroyed
>> by such "limit cases" is a fundamentally flawed notion of class. i
>> think that's what we're talking about here. and here's at least one
>> binary that yoshie seems to be working with -- you're either with us
>> or against us. you're prole or you're capitalist pig, working class or
>> bourgeoisie. in the club (a "member") or out. and her way of talking
>> about it, imo, begs ian's questions: when are you in and when are you
>> out?
>>
>> not to assume that ian's after what i am . . .
>>
>> jeff
>
> Longshoremen of the ILWU must be among the most class conscious part of
> the proletariat in the USA. Knowing which side you are on helps you
> organize, make your union stronger, and gain higher wages and better
> working conditions than otherwise; having leaders -- like Harry Bridges
> (1901-1990) -- who know which side they are on also helps.
>
> Relatively high wages and good working conditions of today's
> longshoremen in the ILWU are results of past collective bargainings,
> through which the union tried to ensure that fruits of labor-saving
> technological innovations would be shared with workers, rather than
> simply pocketed by capitalists at the expense of workers:
>
> ***** ...Meanwhile, the union concluded that new methods and machines
> would be introduced no matter how great members' resistance to change.
> As employers had the contractual right to make changes in operations,
> the best the union could hope for was to retain the old rules governing
> size of gangs, methods of cargo handling and related contract
> guarantees, as long as possible. New ideas for cargo handling,
> revolutionary ship design, the introduction of strapped loads,
> large-scale use of containers, and numerous other devices would sooner
> or later bypass the existing rules. Proposed legislation would also
> outlaw may of the guarantees and safeguards afforded by the old
> contract, leaving the workers with no new forms of security or
> protection in exchange.
>
> Clearly the time had come to reexamine labor relations in the light of
> the mechanization and modernization of West Coast longshoring. The
> union and the employers decided they were better off tackling the
> issues as a whole, and agreed the following principles would shape the
> 1960 contract: the shipowners and stevedoring contractors were freed
> from restrictions on the introduction of labor-saving devices, relieved
> of the use of unnecessary workers, and assured of the elimination of
> work practices which impeded the efficient flow of cargo.
>
> The union made these guarantees to industry in exchange for an
> unprecedented series of benefits for the workers, designed to protect
> them against the negative impact of machines on their daily work and
> job security. The agreement provided that:
>
> 1. The current workforce would not be laid off. If the unhindered
> introduction of new machinery and methods of work resulted in the loss
> of work opportunity so that the work force had to be reduced, it would
> shrink from the top, with an innovative voluntary early retirement
> program instead of layoffs. If employers later needed to cut the
> workforce further, they could invoke a compulsory retirement provision
> with a higher pension benefit.
> 2. Increased profits would be shared with the workers in the form of
> increased wages and benefits.
> 3. Machines and labor-saving devices would be introduced wherever
> possible to lighten the burden of hard and hazardous work.
>
> During longshore bargaining in 1966, the principle of M&M were extended
> under union pressure to "preserve the present registered force of
> longshoremen as the basic work force in the industry, and to share with
> that work force a portion of the net labor cost savings to be effected
> by the introduction of mechanical innovations, removal of contractual
> restrictions, or any other means." Significantly, these innovations
> were to [be] implemented without causing a speedup for the individual
> worker, indiscriminate layoffs, or a violation of safety codes or
> rules....
>
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~chwbiii/newunion.htm> *****
>
> Relatively high wages and good working conditions, however, don't make
> capitalists out of longshoremen: "Over the years, various shipping
> innovations have reduced the number of West Coast dockworkers to about
> 10,000 permanent longshoremen and 5,000 part-time workers. Those
> relatively low numbers mean that shipping companies do not object to
> the six-figure wages. Longshoremen's pay adds up to slightly more than
> 1 percent of the cargo value they handle -- costs that are
> 'negligible,' a top PMA official said" (at
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64399-2002Jan4.html>).
> They still produce profits for shipping companies, which admit that
> labor costs are "negligible."
>
> Still the same struggle over labor-saving technology, productivity, and
> relative surplus value as Marx described:
>
> ***** The capitalist...cries out against this usurping attempt to lay
> taxes on the advance of industry, and declares roundly that the
> productiveness of labour does not concern the labourer at all. [20]
>
> [20] "Trades' Unions, in their desire to maintain wages, endeavor to
> share in the benefits of improved machinery." (Quelle horreur!)
> "...the demanding higher wages, because labour is abbreviated, is in
> other words the endeavor to establish a duty on mechanical
> improvements." ("On Combination of Trades," new ed., London, 1834, p.
> 42.)
>
> <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch21.htm> *****
> -- Yoshie
>
> * Calendar of Events in Columbus:
> <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
> * Anti-War Activist Resources:
> <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>
>