US and THEM

This morning, I had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding my workplace. (Safeway Grocers). It is a union job, and we are getting paid well, although many of the newer workers are getting paid at close to minimum wage and yet asked to do so much.The company is working us harder and harder, which I don't mind working hard...please understand.What I DO mind is the strategy of reducing the higher paid workers hours and increasing the lower paid workers hours. If there is no money to be made over and beyond living expenses, there is no motivation to continue working at a job.In this capitalist free market society that we live in, who represents "us" and who represents "them" and are such distinctions inevitable for the purpose of paying people a fair value for their labor?

The first thing to say is that in a genuinely free market system the fair price for something (e.g. your labor) as dictated by the market is based purely on how much (or little) it will sell for rather than any more socially minded factors. If you are unwilling to work for that amount but enough other people can and will then so be it.With regards to the us and them — The most obvious basis for making such a distinction is based on the difference between those who sell their labor and those who pay the wages of others in order to profit from their labor.

quote:

---

With regards to the us and them — The most obvious basis for making such a distinction is based on the difference between those who sell their labor and those who pay the wages of others in order to profit from their labor.

---

Should one group have a higher status than the other?

Well to be utterly pedantic it depends what you mean by "should" and by "status". But I accept that is rather unhelpful so I will try and answer in the spirit of what I think you are asking. Feel free to correct my asumptions if they are wrong.I think it is largely inevitable that those who possess considerable capital and who are thus in a position to pay others for their labor and profit from it are generally more wealthy than average. I also think that human psychology largely dictates that wealth and social status go hand in hand to a considerable (albeit not exclusive) extent.Do I personally believe that this difference in social status "should" be the case in a moral sense of the word "should"? No. But I also think that insisting that things "should" be different where 'different' conflicts with human nature is asking rather a lot.In an idealistic world social status would arguably be linked to social usefulness. In reality vast wealth regardless of social usefulness results in considerable social status.Is that what you meant?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Unfortunately, yes. I work in a unionized grocery store. I talk often with the manager, and am able to discern the basic business strategy of the corporation in response to the business climate. I am also one of two union stewards, and am up on the strategies and ideologies of the union. Being in such a position, I have potential influence in directing the next union contract and the outcome thereof. It worries me to see the change in the working environment of grocery stores and in a larger sense, of labor in general. Corporations, it seems, view labor expense only as a controllable expense and not as human lives and livelihoods. Families need to be fed. Children need to be raised. Heck, the economy needs to be stimulated, and only those with some disposable income can oblige.Grocery workers make decent wages and have some good benefits, but the pressure is on for workers to be paid less than at any point in the last 30 years. We are asked to work harder than we ever have worked before, yet we are given wage offers that are less than ever before as well. Truly, the money should come from the stockholders and the corporate salaries as much as from the common laborers, but this seems to be an uphill battle.

We don't live in capitalist free market societies. In fact, "capitalism" and "free markets" are fundamentally opposed concepts. The acquisition of capital is best served by perverting markets.

I'm not sure that forms a particularly useful distinction. In general, actual wage payers are still rewarded in reasonable proportion to their merit. The real "them" live in the shady world of banking and higher business. People like Trump whose entire fortune is based on ripping off the tax payer, or the bankers who've driven food prices through the roof while contributing not a jot to the production of said food.

Sure sure. The modern day reality is more complicated than an "us" and "them" based purely on the distinction between those who make profit and those who sell their labor for a wage.But this distinction still forms the basis of the capitalist system and serves at least as a starting point for discussing Phat's topic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Unions, workers rights, health and safety legislation, minimum wage etc. etc. All of these things seek to curb the worst excesses of free markets which, if left entirely unfettered, can be pretty brutal in terms of their social consequences.Ideally a capitalist system should harness the power of markets whilst regulating against their worst excesses and natural tendencies towards monopolies and excessive concentration of wealth.Well regulated markets are what is needed.

This seems like an issue your union should be addressing, you pay dues to be represented, if the union doesn't care about this problem, then they don't truly represent you do they?I would suggest getting together with other union members who have had their hours cut, pull some numbers together showing how you have lost hours while lower paid employees are getting more. Present this at a union meeting and see what happens.I don't have much experience with unions. I was a teamster for a short period when I worked for UPS, but this seems like the kind of thing they would be all over.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

Imagine a team of horses pulling a wagon. Now imagine no driver. The team of horses will pull towards the side with the strongest horse. (or the one who pulls the hardest to steer the others) This is somewhat how a union works. The squeaky wheels get the grease. Problem is, there is no real agreement on what the most important issues are, except when lobbied vigorously. You say that the union needs to represent me. They would reply that I am the union. Lobbying a pay issue is contentious at best, though. Some workers, those who are low paid, want more hours or more pay. Other workers would push for seniority to favor them. Others, such as myself, are caught in the middle, and cant really have a valid argument for anything ...we are told to collectively sacrifice. In essence, consensus is difficult to negotiate.

Would it not be in your interest for the lowest paid members to get paid more? Then there would be less reason for them to be given preference for more hours over higher paid people such as yourself. Bring the lowest paid employess pay more into line with your own and you would seem to be doing both them and you a favour. No?

I understand what your saying, I guess in a perfect world the union would want equality for its members based on hours worked if nothing else.Thanks for explaining a little on how it works, I never even went to one union meeting and only dealt with a shop steward once when I had been late for work and supervisor reprimanded me.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

Ringo explained to me once that it would be best to narrow the gap between the classifications, which I quite agree with. Problem was, last contract the corporation kept proposing wage increases for the highest paid group only (they make up roughly 40% of all workers) and eventually the increase was voted in, since everyone grew scared of having no contract. The corporate strategy seemed to be to split the two groups into an extreme, then give the lesser paid folks the lions share of the hours to compensate. (divide and conquer) Traditionally, we have operated on seniority in regards to hours. The company is diametrically opposed to seniority and maintains that lesser paid people should get more hours. The net effect saves the company money, but at our expense. What good does it do to get paid more if as a result you get less hours? Kinda defeats the whole purpose.

Divide and rule is a very common and very effective strategy when it comes to such negotiations.Ideally the union would remain united as without unity it has very little influence at all. But in the current harsh economic climate where people fear for their livelihoods I appreciate that this is more easily said than achieved.