Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

global1

(25,253 posts)
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:41 AM Jul 2013

It's In The Corporate Interests To Keep Unemployment High.....

This is my theory.

If unemployment is high that means that corps can drop their pay and still get people to work for them because people will do anything to survive and make money (even though it's a meager wage) to put food on their table and keep a roof above theirs and their family's heads.

The corporation can push the employee around and treat them badly - because the alternative is that that employee wouldn't have a job.

If the employee does in fact stand up to the corporation than they get fired and the corporation doesn't have to go too far to hire on another person that is desperate and in need of a job to survive.

So as long as unemployment is high and jobs are at a premium - the corporation is in the drivers seat. They can pay a minimum wage. They can put unreasonable demands on their employees. If they lose an employee - there's another one right there to take the place.

It's an employers market and I think they want to keep it that way.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
1. True. But there's no way businesses could find work for everyone even if they wanted to...
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:48 AM
Jul 2013

That future everyone talks about, with automated factories and computers doing everything? Well it's here, and the employment gap is going to grow into a chasm. And we as a people are stuck in a 20th century mindset that everyone should find full employment. That's because we're stuck in an old-fashioned way of thinking that everyone needs to work in order for an economy to be fully functioning. The truth is, it doesn't anymore. Which should be a good thing. But our economic system turns it into a bad thing.

Dyedinthewoolliberal

(15,577 posts)
2. A tactic to use against this
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 10:50 AM
Jul 2013

One Big Union! That is what the Wobblies propose. When ALL workers are organized as one, this kind of thing would stop. However.....
How do we accomplish that?

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
6. The National Low Wage Workers Union. Imagine if they went on strike!
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:53 AM
Jul 2013

The NLWWU will happen before long, via social media. I've been promoting this concept to ALF-CIO leaders. Pass it on to any union leaders you have contact with.

global1

(25,253 posts)
8. The Time Is Right For A "National Workers Association"......
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 02:04 PM
Jul 2013

Given the fact that unions in the U.S. are taking hits and union membership is down and the power of unions has been diminished over the years since the Reagan presidency - I'm thinking that we need to look at the plight of the worker in the United States from a different perspective.

Right-to-work laws have contributed to the decreasing role of unions in the U.S. According to Wikipedia a right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

"Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers.

Because right-to-work laws have impacted the worker and workers rights, wages and unions in the U.S. then it seems to me that we have to come up with a different and new way of promoting workers rights in the U.S. I'm thinking that we need to model a workers rights organization after the National Rifle Association model. The NRA has become a formidable lobbying group for gun owners and proponents of gun rights. The NRA has done this with a membership of 4.3 million. With the population of the U.S. at approximately 312.8 million people this means the NRA membership is approximately 1.37% of the total population of the United States.

Note: This post is not about gun control nor does it have anything to do with the recent Newtown tragedy. This post is about 'workers rights'. Please don't make this a post about gun control - I simply am using the NRA as an example of an effective organization.

According to Wikipedia in June 2009 there were 306, 000, 000 people living in the United States of which there were about 155,000,000 people that are employed. This means that approximate 51% of the U.S. population would be classified as workers.

If we were able to form an organization of workers where workers would pay a membership fee to join - just like the NRA - and if we were able to convince about 26% of the work force to join - an organization of workers could have a membership of 40,000,000 people compared to 4,300,000 million members of the NRA or approximately a 10 fold increase over the number of members in the NRA. If the NRA has been able to become a formidable lobbying force in this country with 4.3 million members - just think what a National Workers Association could become with 40 million members.

Every worker or potential worker would be eligible to become a member of the NWA. Membership dues could be nominal at $35.00 per year per worker. That would net such an organization $1.4 billion dollars. Just think of the power that this amount of money would bring to lobbying for workers and promoting workers rights to combat the push back we as workers are getting from the corporations that are running this country.

Now what would this organization be called and what would it stand for. Here is my first attempt at trying to describe such and organization of workers:

Note: consider this a work in process.

"The National Workers Association of America (NWA) would be organized as an American non-profit 501(c)(4) lobbying group that advocates for the protection of working people in the United States, and the promotion of workers rights including the right to work; free choice of employment; just and favorable conditions of work and unemployment protection. The NWA would support the right to equal treatment, regardless of gender, origin and appearance, religion, sexual orientation. Equal pay for equal work; just and favorable remuneration ensuring the worker and his/her family an existence worthy of human dignity and the right to rest and leisure, with reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The NWA could have an education component and sponsor training courses in career building, skills training, resume composition, resume posting, interviewing skills and provide assistance with short term vocational training, supportive services to obtain GED placement, vocational rehabilitation. The NWA could provide members with a job registry including job search advice. The NWA would make available salary surveys/advice, human resource and unemployment assistance. It would also be a clearing house for programs that would provide workers career counseling and retraining for new careers. "


Again - looking at the NRA as an example of an effective organization - the NWA could have state and local chapters. It could initially be organized around current unions and they could immediately become the core of such an organization. The NWA could have local, state and national meetings. The NWA could have a monthly journal and newsletter and of course a website - complete with all the social networking tools that are available (i.e., Twitter, Facebook, etc). There could be specialty sections in the NWA that align around groups of workers (i.e., hotel workers; restaurant workers; plumbers; electricians; truckers; etc) in order to give all workers a voice.

The point being is that we as workers need someone to go to bat for us and we need to have the lobbying muscle to compete with the corporations. With the formation of an NWA - we would be going to bat for ourselves.

I'm tired of all the strong rhetoric that goes on before an election and then the 'bait and switch' weaseling that goes on after pols are elected. It's time that we organize and have and apply leverage in order to protect our interests. I'm thinking that our elected officials would take heed and listen to such an organization with such a voice.

I'm throwing this idea out there and am looking for some constructive criticism in the formation of such an entity. It seems to me that we can do anything that we set our mind to and a National Workers Association would go a long way in giving the common worker in the U.S. to prevent any additional erosion of "Jobs In America".

What do my fellow DU'ers out there think about this?

I actually posted this a while back and here is what others said (follow this link):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022032941

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
3. Marx called it the "Surplus Army of Labor"....
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:41 AM
Jul 2013

and described it, circa 160 years ago.

Edited to add: This is an example of the capitalists using Marx's principles to enrich the rulers at the expense of the working class. The call it (something like) "The optimum unemployment rate" which is the spot where there are enough people working to keep the profits flowing, but there's also enough unemployment to keep the ones who ARE working from getting a larger share of those profits.

 

markiv

(1,489 posts)
4. why do you think they put massive guest workers in the immigration bill?
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:46 AM
Jul 2013

they use path to citizenship as the selling point, so that any democrat that goes against it can be called 'crua\el, racist' etc

but in the fine print is a massive guest worker increase for white collar jobs

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
5. Think also of service costs, yard workers, house cleaning, maids, cooks.... "the 1% servant force"
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 11:50 AM
Jul 2013

It takes about 5% of the population to pick up after the 1%.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
7. Here is my theory
Sat Jul 13, 2013, 12:15 PM
Jul 2013

Corporations attempt to cut operational costs. From a business sense, you can't fault them for that. One of the first avenues they use is employee pay, training, safety, and benefits.

Having said that, they inherently know that consumer disposable income is to their collective benefit. Disposable income positively affects every business directly or indirectly.

The greed is so great, however, they leave it upon other business to pay the "toll" of putting money in the wallet of consumers.

I also believe that CEO's, board members, and primary shareholders will always choose short term personal gain over long term health of the corporation they influence. CEO's are lavishly rewarded for failure. If not by short term success at the expense of long term success, then by bail outs from taxpayers. If these executives make their personal fortune, they think nothing of leaving a company in shambles.

Government policy rewards such behavior every step of the way. Politics definitely hurt the process. Politics are often a snapshot in time as opposed to a visionary future. There are times when a small sacrifice now reaps great reward later. Politics do not allow for short term sacrifice. Politics demand immediate success. Corporations that are contracted by government will sacrifice the future to look politically good now.

Government must adopt a philosophy that creates an even playing field for business, so that they all must equally contribute and all equally share opportunity for profit. For example, a minimum wage does not show favoritism if equally applied across the board. If all corporations bear the same burden, they are more apt to comply.

This is where outsourcing to foreign nations has destroyed our economy. It is the perceived "unfairness" of paying for environmental safety, worker safety, worker compensation within our borders that has built this mentality of cutting costs through employees. CEOs expect the operational costs at home to meet the operational costs abroad.

Trade agreements should always, ALWAYS, take in to account foreign laws with respect to environmental, safety, and labor laws. A tariff is in order for those nations that do not meet a defined standard.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's In The Corporate Int...