Reply #306: That's fo sho.

[gorfle]

My bitchiness comes naturally, especially when people who have no idea what they are talking about, and they ADMIT that, go on to make ridiculous statements with no basis in reality, and don't bother to even learn about a thing before they parrot asinine opinions.

I admit I don't know much about Cuba. I know plenty about labor history in the United States. I know plenty about what happens to workers with no representation and the abuses that get heaped on them by those in power.

It was stated that increased tourist income would be of no benefit because it would not trickle down to the workers. This was what inspired my post about unionization. Even not knowing anything about Cuba in particular, if the original poster's statement was true about the abuses under Batista where the workers were taken advantage of, then Unions have demonstrated an ability to rectify those kinds of situations.

I reject your claim that "every nation is a snowflake" and there are no direct comparisons that can be made.

No, you didn't say anything about embargoes, but that is the root of the problem, not a handful of US tourists joining in an already lucrative tourist trade.

How are the embargoes responsible for the workers not reaping the benefits of the lucrative tourist trade, as the post I was responding to asserted?

You talk about corporations as if they both exist, and are necessary. Why? Is it because, perhaps, you do not understand the way the Cuban system works?

I don't know who controls the strings, and it is not relevant. Whether it is a corporation, the State, or Santa Claus, if the workers are being abused in the relationship the answer is better worker representation. This worked here in the U.S. I suspect it will work in any economic situation where the good being produced is not easily transportable.