Joanna
Chuck Grimes wrote:
>``...Actually, this is cheap cynicism that shows a mistaken grasp of
>the nature of markets and business activities....
>
>The law and threat of legal sanction, civil and criminal, is
>incapable of keeping people in line if they are not generally pretty
>decent to start with. You know this, too. ...Essentially every
>transaction you make in the market depends mainly on your trusting in
>the ethics of business people..'' jks
>
>------
>
>
>Well, if I accept the charge of cheap cynicism and ignorance, then
>perhaps you could be persuaded you are sugar coating a swindle from a
>position of greater understanding than mine?
>
>Every transaction in the market depends on my trust in the ethics
>of business people. Yes. That is correct. My trust is compelled by my
>completely subservient fealty to Capital.
>
>However, I have also noticed that such trust, never mind fealty, is
>not reciprocated. In fact, I must demonstrate in concrete and
>completely objectively measurable terms that I can be trusted with
>Capital's promise of money. On the other hand Capital seems to have no
>obligation and indeed provides no measure at all to demonstrate itself
>trustworthy with my money.
>
>For example, I am paid only after I have performed work. Notice this
>is a one way flow of trust. I trust them to pay me. They have no
>obligation and in fact do not trust me to work. And, it seems to me
>that the only reason Capital pays me, after I have performed work, is
>exactly because it is required by law to do so. Grateful, I am too, that
>there are such laws. Although I suspect it would cost me more than I
>have ever been paid to get such laws enforced against an employer who
>didn't pay me.
>
>Perhaps you have never performed work for which you were not
>paid. Perhaps you have. I have. It is an interesting
>experience because it is a useful illustration of the completely
>asymmetrical arrangement of trust and power between labor and
>capital. I suggest it is exactly this asymmetry that renders the
>entire transaction between labor and capital beyond the realm of any
>ethic, except that of power.
>
>I was caught in an curious dilemma. If I quit, then how will I compel
>payment? If the employer no longer depends on my work, what reason
>will he have to pay? If I don't quit, how long am I willing to work
>for nothing and trust my already discredited employer to finally come
>through with a check? My answer to this dilemma was two months.
>
>I was never paid. I filed a form and co-signed a letter of complaint
>with a fellow worker and sent it off to the state fair employment
>practices commission (or some such). We never heard back from the
>state.
>
>Evidently, you have to hire a lawyer and sue the employer in court. If
>you don't have punched time cards or don't have independent records of
>your work, how do you prove you worked? Well, there is no proof,
>except your word. Yet, if you sue, the burden of proof is on you. I
>could show I was hired only if my employer produced the employment
>form which of course I trusted him to keep.
>
>The employment form said nothing about how much I was to be paid or
>even hinted at the fact I was to be paid at all. It merely gave the
>usual details of name, address, phone number, qualifications, passed
>employment, and other items that demonstrated I could be trusted to
>perform the kind of work I applied for. Technically this formed didn't
>indicate that I was hired at all. It did have the title, `Employment
>Form' across the top, but then I was the only one who signed it. On
>the other hand, I was never shown a bank statement that demonstrated
>my employer had enough money to pay me. In fact the idea that I might
>need to have such evidence before I started to work would be
>considered ludicrous. As far as I know, no employee has a right to
>demand their employer produce a bank statement showing sufficient
>funds to meet payroll.
>
>Well, what can I say? Mistakes were made. There are flaws in the
>system. However, in the larger view and upon reflecting on the fact
>there is no alternative, it is probably the best of all worlds, since
>of course it is the only world.
>
>CG
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>