I don't mean that workers should demand the government enforce rules and regulations, although doing so is better than not doing anything about them at all. Looking to the government usually takes too much time, even in unusual cases where they get enforced, as such agencies as OSHA are understaffed and bureaucratic processes too arbitrary and cumbersome. And, even if workers eventually win, for instance through lawsuits, fines and damages are too small to compensate workers and to serve as deterrents for capitalists. Workers need to know their rights, study rules and regulations, build their own shop-floor organizations, and enforce the rules and regulations on the spot.
Steve wrote:
>That is one of those little things that tend to support the need to
>have someone at least a little sympathetic in control of state power.
What would take to get pro-working-class political leaders elected or at least make existing politicians a little more inclined to listen to workers? Workers have to speak up through their collective actions first of all. The squeaky wheel gets greased. EPA and OSHA were created under the Nixon administration, after all.
andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com wrote:
>Byw you are likely to get fired if you try to organize a union --
>last I heard, your chances were about 50%, probably higher.
"A study conducted by Harvard Law professor Paul Weiler found that one in 20 union supporters were fired during election campaigns, while the AFL-CIO puts the figure at closer to one in eight" (Richard D. Kahlenberg, "Labor Organizing as a Civil Right," The American Prospect 11.20, <http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/20/kahlenberg-r.html>, 11 Sept. 2000). It may be worse now.
Marvin Gandall marvgandall at rogers.com, Tue May 17 11:09:22 PDT 2005:
>The first strikes were mostly "recognition" strikes
Existing unions seek to get workers to first (A) win recognition from their employer and then (B) get the employer to sign the first contract that comprehensively covers wages, benefits, working conditions, and any other relevant aspects. Where that's tactically desirable, well and good. But where it isn't? A number of labor activists and researchers have encouraged existing unions to consider minority unionism, drawing upon examples of workers who act as a union without being a legally recognized bargaining unit: e.g., <http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0104labotz.html> and <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020624&c=3&s=rogers> (also available at <http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2002/08/g.html>).
Marvin wrote:
>Early class struggles in the workplace, region, and country were
>necessarily preceded by the formation of workers' organizations at
>these levels, and could not have proceeded without them in any
>sustained and permanent way.
No one is arguing against the fact that organization precedes action. What we are saying is that organization doesn't necessarily mean an existing union local or an organizing committee led by a paid union organizer employed by an existing union. In fact, relying only upon them will doom the labor movement, as existing unions are neither willing nor capable of organizing as many new workers as necessary to even prevent further decline in union density, let alone reverse it. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>