Henry Ford Gave us 40 hour, 5 day work week: Not Unions

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   

How many times have you been in an economic discussion with someone, discussing the benefits of competition, the power of markets, and the overall benefits of capitalism when someone blurts out that in any competitive system, unions and regulations are necessary, for without them, without their interference, we wouldn’t have a middle class, we wouldn’t have a five day work week or eight hour work days? I hear this all the time, I see it on bumper stickers, and it is so often repeated that I thought I’d blog on it and give the readers of my blog an edge on what really happened, and how to respond if they encounter the same topic.

So, who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week? Was it really the unions, was it really higher regulations? No, the historical answer is that it was Heny Ford who gave us the 5 day, 8 hours per day, work week.


Source

This is the source of this bloggers conclusion. It's a 1926 interview with Henry Ford named HENRY FORD: Why I Favor Five Days' Work With Six Days' Pay. (Please read it: It's quite interesting.)


In addition, if you look at why Henry Ford did this, you will see that his reasons had nothing to do with charity, and everything to do with increasing profits and dealing with the forces of competition.

What makes those who believe it was unions look even more ridiculous is the fact that Henry Ford despised unions. The tensions were so strong, that Ford hired a former Navy boxer to help him stop the unions from unionizing Ford Motor Company.


It's a true story that led to something calledThe Battle of the Overpass. The story goes something like this:


The Battle of the Overpass was an incident on 26 May 1937, in which labor organizers clashed with Ford Motor Company security guards.

The United Auto Workers had planned a leaflet campaign entitled, "Unionism, Not Fordism," at the pedestrian overpass over Miller Road at Gate 4 of the Rouge complex. Demanding an $8 six-hour day for workers, in contrast to the $6 eight-hour day then in place, the campaign was planned for shift change time, with an expected 9,000 workers both entering and leaving the plant.

At approximately 2 p.m., several of the leading UAW union organizers, including Walter Reuther and Richard Frankensteen, were asked by a Detroit News photographer, James E. (Scotty) Kilpatrick, to pose for a picture on the overpass, with the Ford sign in the background.[1] While they were posing, men from Ford's Service Department, an internal security force under the direction of Harry Bennett, came from behind and began to beat them.


Harry Bennett was the Navy boxer hired by Henry Ford to bust the union.
.

Many of those who hold the view that it was unions - or regulations - who gave us the middle class, often hold outdated fears against ‘unfettered markets’, still repeating the now fully debunked Karl Marx view that capitalism, through competition, will bring exploitation of workers, will be a ‘race to the bottom’, and will eventually, atleast according to Marx, result in class warfare blah blah blah blah. However, if you come back to the real world, you will see that competition does the exact opposite, it increases the standard of living, it increases working standards, it increases pay, and it is overall the working person’s best weapon, not its enemy. This is why unions and the minimum wage have the opposite result, since by reducing competition they don’t make the working person’s standard of living better; on net balance, they make it worse.

So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.


Indeed.




posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
What a load of baloney! I was in a union and they are important. I worked very hard and when they had issues with making certain people work all the overtime to the point of exhaustion my union rep stepped in and corrected that imbalance in man hours and favoritism.Otherwise I would just probably been fired. While you do have union dues, they do protect the workers. I have worked at non-union jobs and there is just no protection for employees. I was harassed by a rather large 18 year old with mental problems and short of violence, she would not desist. I was just greeted with laughter from the management. I think it was called an open door policy,which is just a polite word for if u don't like it there's the door! Give me a union any day.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
From the 1926 article HENRY FORD: Why I Favor Five Days' Work With Six Days' Pay


JUST twelve years ago, Henry Ford made an announcement which, for the moment, turned industry upside down and brought workmen by the tens of thousands storming for jobs. His announcement was that thereafter the minimum wage in his industries would be five dollars for a day of eight hours. At that time a good wage was two dollars and a half for a day of ten hours. Now he makes another announcement far more important than the one which then went round the world.

"We have," he said, "decided upon and at once put into effect through all the branches of our industries the five day week. Hereafter there will be no more work with us on Saturdays and Sundays. These will be free days, but the men, according to merit, will receive the same pay equivalent as for a full six day week. A day will continue to be eight hours, with no overtime.

"For the present this will not apply to the railroad, and of course it cannot apply to watchmen or the men on certain jobs where the processes must be continuous. Some of these men will have to work Saturdays and Sundays, but they constitute less than one per cent. of our working force, and each of them will have two consecutive days off some time during the week. In short, we have changed our calendar and now count a week as five days or forty hours.


He was also against minimum wages.


That belongs to yesterday, before we quite knew what paying high wages meant. Now so few people get the minimum wage that we do not bother about it at all. We try to pay a man what he is worth and we are not inclined to keep a man who is not worth more than the minimum wage.


So let's now look at the reason why he, as man seeking to make profit, decided this was a good idea.


"The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.

"The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music -- more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad.

"Just as the eight hour day opened our way to prosperity, so the five day week will open our way to a still greater prosperity.


Capitalism is what brings people out of poverty, not handouts. Capitalism gave us Henry Ford. Because he was seeking ever greater profits, we all benefitted. He gave thousands of people jobs, and an affordable way to get people moving. We all benefitted from his greed. Competition is what gave us better working conditions not unions.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohioriver
What a load of baloney! I was in a union and they are important. I worked very hard and when they had issues with making certain people work all the overtime to the point of exhaustion my union rep stepped in and corrected that imbalance in man hours and favoritism.Otherwise I would just probably been fired.


Do you know that for sure? Why couldn't you speak for yourself? If you didn't like working there, why did you not quit?


While you do have union dues, they do protect the workers.


They protect their income: union dues


I have worked at non-union jobs and there is just no protection for employees. I was harassed by a rather large 18 year old with mental problems and short of violence, she would not desist. I was just greeted with laughter from the management. I think it was called an open door policy,which is just a polite word for if u don't like it there's the door! Give me a union any day.


Why would you want to work at a place that you don't like to work? You don't need a union to find a good job. I have never had a "union" job, but my brothers and friends have. I can safely say, some jobs were great, some sucked. You know what I did to the jobs that I didn't like? I quit and found a better job.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I am not quite sure where u live CHL, but obviously not in a "right to work" state. Florida being what it is , allows people to be let go for ANY reaon. When I say ANY, I MEAN IT. Even for trying to form unions at thier workplace. Here if you can successfully form unions , they have NO real power and generally are subverted and hire people who will accept a mere pittance to do the same labor as a skilled person just to make "profit". Although I personally don't agree with the politics and the way unions are run up north, I can assure you that they ARE necessary.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
I am not quite sure where u live CHL,


Winnipeg, Canada


but obviously not in a "right to work" state. Florida being what it is , allows people to be let go for ANY reaon. When I say ANY, I MEAN IT.


If I start a business, shouldn't I get to decide who I want to hire or fire?


Even for trying to form unions at thier workplace.


And they have the right to do that. Afterall we can see unions track record in all industries. That is itself more than enough evidence to keep unions out.


Here if you can successfully form unions , they have NO real power and generally are subverted and hire people who will accept a mere pittance to do the same labor as a skilled person just to make "profit".


So they are basically a "middle man" between a employee and employer. Why not leave the middle man out?


Although I personally don't agree with the politics and the way unions are run up north, I can assure you that they ARE necessary.


I disagree completely. They are not necessary. In fact, big unions have done much more harm than good.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Okay, New here, don't know how to do the fancy quotes, but I will address a few things I feel are ridiculous statements

1. I decide who I can hire or fire.

Duh! Unions CAN'T tell you who to hire or fire, only could in the case of a "closed shop" and guess what...the owner had to AGREE to a closed shop and those hiring and firing rules. Why would the owner agree, the union could bargain for this right. The only real bargaining power the unions had were strike/quit, owners who felt this was excessive could simply fire the employee or see who could last longer in a strike.

A Union is the freedom to sell labor as an individual see's fit, INCLUDING as groups. It is amazing how companies now merge into larger businesses, then use their market share & oligopolistic positions for collusion/market dominance, yet promote how evil this process is...that's right a union is a business that does EXACTLY the same thing as ANY business. It seems like people who write this drivel only understand economics to the point of being able to yell "free market" and "supply and demand". All that complicated stuff involved in REAL economics they can't understand.

2. Henry ford.

?!? What about the United Mine workers, AFL, FOTLU and NLU. The 8 hour day was COMMON in MANY MANY MANY industries LONG before Henry Ford instituted it, whoever stated this don't know JACK about labor history. Ford was smart with the wage increase, but he only shaved an hour off his workers current work day if I remember correctly. Sorry, this was a very isolated case.

3. Union's aren't why wages increased.

Coming from a long line of coal miners I can safely say this is moronic...

Unions are WHY you are required to be paid in currency. You see in the coal camps the company would not pay money, rather with scrip so you could buy stuff from their store. People wanted real money so that they could just leave if the mine was too dangerous. Apparently the only force in the country that would actually argue that people should be PAID for work with MONEY was one of those evil unions. They even eventually got laws outlawing this system passed.

3. Regulation is evil...blah blah blah...

PROPERTY IS GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!!!!!

Let me say that again, PROPERTY IS GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!!!!!

Did you hear that. The house I am living in I own...more accurately I own a piece of paper that the government ascertains that I have certain rights to an area that has a house on it. Basically the argument is that business should not be regulated...except for the regulation allowing them to own/lease the land they are located on, and the regulation that prevents me from producing the exact same trademarked goods, and the regulation that's required so I can't use that companies image, and the regulation required that can allow courts to enforce contracts, and the regulation required to protect stuff they just made up (intellectual property), and the regulation that allows people to be jailed for stealing products.

When I hear regulation in THIS context it means, regulation for all but business...except those needed to operate and guarantee payment, but not those that protect the public from malicious business...

4. More harm than good.

Yep, requiring cash payment instead of indentured servitude...BAD!!! Same people back then argued how business couldn't survive without child labor, or the 10 hour/8 hour workday.

Safe workplace, if you ate meat that just happened to be a worker who fell into a grinder at a slaughterhouse...well, shouldn't have bought that meat, or shoulda quit if you worked their...UNIONS BAD!!!

Overall the article posted was nothing more than the ravings of an angry child who is upset that daddy government requires him to play by the same rules as everyone else. It seems no one understands the difference between free market fundamentalism and capitalism anymore...*sigh*



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cool Hand Luke
 


Yes Henry Ford implemented the 40 hour, 5 day workweek, he didn't invent it.

Workers, in all fields of labour, had been fighting for that very right for years before Henry implemented it.


The movement for an 8-hour workday originated among Australian workers in 1856 and was taken up by the International Workingmen’s Association, a European organization led by Karl Marx.



During the worldwide economic depression of the 1930s, agitation for a 5-day workweek was widespread, particularly in the U.S. and western Europe. In 1933, Congress passed the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (q.v.), which mandated a staged reduction in the standard workweek to 40 hours. Pay for overtime work was specified at “time-and-a-half,” or 150 percent of the worker’s hourly rate after 40 hours of work in a week.

www.history.com...

So, your little story is just another attempt by the establishment to take away the recognition of the working class in bettering their workplace, and once again give the recognition to 'the boss' for eventually giving in to pressure.

Just about every right you have in the workplace has been won by effort from ordinary working class people, but it's always those in authority, that finally either break from pressure or find a way to use it to their advantage (schools), that get the historical recognition.

This story is never ending. The dumb ass working class stiff couldn't do a damn thing for themselves...


Unions could be far better than they are if it wasn't people, like you, who hate any kind of worker solidarity, infiltrating and corrupting them from the inside.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfChaos

The only real bargaining power the unions had were strike/quit, owners who felt this was excessive could simply fire the employee or see who could last longer in a strike.


That is not the case in large unions like the UAW. GM could not simply fire employees who decide to strike otherwise unions would have no power whatsoever. It is because of this power to strike that unions have so much power over the company. What options does the company have when unions decide to strike? If they don't give in to the unions demands, they will continue to stop production. No production = no revenue = no more company and guess what, no more jobs from that company.


It is amazing how companies now merge into larger businesses, then use their market share & oligopolistic positions for collusion/market dominance, yet promote how evil this process is...that's right a union is a business that does EXACTLY the same thing as ANY business.


Unions are very different than a company. For one thing the only people unions have to satisfy is themselves. A company, if they want to continue to exist have appease consumers. If they make a product that people don't want or doesn't compete with other products on the market, they will not last very long.

[qoute]It seems like people who write this drivel only understand economics to the point of being able to yell "free market" and "supply and demand". All that complicated stuff involved in REAL economics they can't understand.




What about the United Mine workers, AFL, FOTLU and NLU. The 8 hour day was COMMON in MANY MANY MANY industries LONG before Henry Ford instituted it,


It was only common for government employees. Why? Well if you haven't been paying attention, they have the power to give themselves perks any time they feel like such as wage increases and so forth.


whoever stated this don't know JACK about labor history. Ford was smart with the wage increase, but he only shaved an hour off his workers current work day if I remember correctly. Sorry, this was a very isolated case.


It was only til long after Ford implemented it that government mandated the 40 hour week and overtime laws.


Unions are WHY you are required to be paid in currency. You see in the coal camps the company would not pay money, rather with scrip so you could buy stuff from their store. People wanted real money so that they could just leave if the mine was too dangerous. Apparently the only force in the country that would actually argue that people should be PAID for work with MONEY was one of those evil unions.


I am not going to argue for practices like the one stated above using scrip. But I would argue that why were so many people eager to work for mining companies back then if it was so terrible? The answer to that is even as we consider their pay today atrocious, back then there were not nearly as many choices of jobs as we have today. It was also better than nothing to earn money or scrip for that matter. People chose to work there so they could provide for their families. Were the conditions terrible? Compared to what? Today? That to me is a very terrible comparison.


PROPERTY IS GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!!!!!!!!


I KNOW. I never said their wasn't a place for government. I am merely for less of it. They have way overstepped their bounds in subsidizing private businesses and actually claiming ownership over companies. Property rights is fundamental to freedom and you must have a way to protect your property, including from them.


Yep, requiring cash payment instead of indentured servitude...BAD!!!


My father worked on a farm when he was a child from dawn to dusk doing jobs by todays standards would be considered "indentured servitude." Yet the little money he did earn from working on the fields was enough to provide for a wife and five kids at that time. He was paid much less than "minimum wage". But if you ask him today if he felt like an "indentured servant, he would say of course not, he used the skills that he had to make the little money he did to provide for his family.


Same people back then argued how business couldn't survive without child labor, or the 10 hour/8 hour workday.


I'm sure there were and some of them might have been telling the truth. Plus you are also forgetting that people would voluntarily work longer days. Why? Because they wanted to make more money.


Safe workplace, if you ate meat that just happened to be a worker who fell into a grinder at a slaughterhouse...well, shouldn't have bought that meat, or shoulda quit if you worked their...UNIONS BAD!!!


Look if a company puts out a product that ends up not being what they promised to be, customers will find out. If customers were to find out that they were eating a human they would not be buying meat from that company for very long. For instance in Canada recently, there was a lysteria outbreak at Maple Leaf meats company. When people started to get sick, it hurt the company big time because people lost their trust in the company to produce safe to eat meat. It is in a companies best interest, in order to keep making profit to keep customers happy.


Overall the article posted was nothing more than the ravings of an angry child who is upset that daddy government requires him to play by the same rules as everyone else. It seems no one understands the difference between free market fundamentalism and capitalism anymore...*sigh*


I hope you actually read the article because it was merely making the case that Henry Ford was responsible for the 40 hour/5 day week. You can take from it what you will but what you just stated has nothing to do with the article.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes Henry Ford implemented the 40 hour, 5 day workweek, he didn't invent it.


I never said otherwise.


Workers, in all fields of labour, had been fighting for that very right for years before Henry implemented it.


I'm sure there, but there was also a large number of people who grabbed all the hours they could get because they wanted to make more money.


The movement for an 8-hour workday originated among Australian workers in 1856 and was taken up by the International Workingmen’s Association, a European organization led by Karl Marx.


The only people who actually implemented this before Henry Ford were Federal Workers. Sure a few private businesses followed suit, but it was only after Henry Ford that it became the norm.



During the worldwide economic depression of the 1930s, agitation for a 5-day workweek was widespread, particularly in the U.S. and western Europe. In 1933, Congress passed the FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (q.v.), which mandated a staged reduction in the standard workweek to 40 hours. Pay for overtime work was specified at “time-and-a-half,” or 150 percent of the worker’s hourly rate after 40 hours of work in a week.

www.history.com...


Henry Ford implemented the 40 hour/5 day week in 1926.


So, your little story is just another attempt by the establishment to take away the recognition of the working class in bettering their workplace, and once again give the recognition to 'the boss' for eventually giving in to pressure.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.


Just about every right you have in the workplace has been won by effort from ordinary working class people, but it's always those in authority, that finally either break from pressure or find a way to use it to their advantage (schools), that get the historical recognition.


I have to ask you, before you read this article when was the last time anyone gave credit to business owners for better working conditions? It is widely believed that unions are responsible for better pay, better conditions etc. Every school in North America teaches it also. I have not been to any school where they teach that competition and technology is what gives us better pay and better jobs.


This story is never ending. The dumb ass working class stiff couldn't do a damn thing for themselves...


I AM A WORKING CLASS STIFF. MY FATHER WAS A WORKING CLASS STIFF. MY GRANDFATHER WAS A WORKING CLASS STIFF. How did we better ourselves? Being productive, taking on more responsibility etc. I have never asked for a raise. Companies have given them to me because they see me as an asset to their company. Unions on the contrary love to take credit for everything concerning wages and so forth because like you said "working stiff couldn't do a damn thing for themselves". And that is the attitude of unions that without them, we are all doomed by our ignorance.


Unions could be far better than they are if it wasn't people, like you, who hate any kind of worker solidarity, infiltrating and corrupting them from the inside.


I have never been in a Union and never want to be. I like a company to pay me for what I am worth as an individual. If I don't think the pay is high enough, I quit. Everytime I have said to a company that I am going to quit, they offer me more money, because they know I am an asset to their company. I don't need someone else to speak for me or decide for me if I want to strike or not. I make my own decisions as an individual. When you join a union, you have given up your individual bargaining power for a collective group that pretends to speak for you. I don't need anyone to "protect" me. I make myself more valuable by learning skills and having a good work ethic, not by joining a mob.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

The only real bargaining power the unions had were strike/quit, owners who felt this was excessive could simply fire the employee or see who could last longer in a strike.




That is not the case in large unions like the UAW. GM could not simply fire employees who decide to strike otherwise unions would have no power whatsoever. It is because of this power to strike that unions have so much power over the company. What options does the company have when unions decide to strike? If they don't give in to the unions demands, they will continue to stop production. No production = no revenue = no more company and guess what, no more jobs from that company.


NO ONE MADE THE COMPANY SIGN A UNION CONTRACT. PERIOD. If a company can't keep a union out it is their own fault for running a crappy company. The right to walk off your job for better wages is a right of ever man and woman...period. The right to bargain as a group instead of an individual is the WORKERS CHOICE. If a company's management can't negotiate effectively it is their own fault. It is in union's best interest to not kill a company, duh! Toyota doesn't have a union in this country cause they always treated their employees well, GM does cause they did like crap.


It is amazing how companies now merge into larger businesses, then use their market share & oligopolistic positions for collusion/market dominance, yet promote how evil this process is...that's right a union is a business that does EXACTLY the same thing as ANY business.



Unions are very different than a company. For one thing the only people unions have to satisfy is themselves. A company, if they want to continue to exist have appease consumers. If they make a product that people don't want or doesn't compete with other products on the market, they will not last very long.


Incorrect, a service is a service is a service and their are many different competing unions AND if unions are not effective, they can be decertified, people even switch unions sometimes. Additionally Unions jobs are nothing more than "service" jobs. Unions are simply better at selling labor than individuals, this combined with market share, market power and other basic economic principles is why they make more money.


It was only til long after Ford implemented it that government mandated the 40 hour week and overtime laws.


Correlation not causation. Scientific method 101, plus their is a much larger history of the 40 hour workweek.


I am not going to argue for practices like the one stated above using scrip. But I would argue that why were so many people eager to work for mining companies back then if it was so terrible? The answer to that is even as we consider their pay today atrocious, back then there were not nearly as many choices of jobs as we have today. It was also better than nothing to earn money or scrip for that matter. People chose to work there so they could provide for their families. Were the conditions terrible? Compared to what? Today? That to me is a very terrible comparison.


It was so great and drew so many people they got a union. Again, people at companies that treat people well don't get them. Conditions were only so bad that many of MY relatives are BURIED in mountains that caved in, of course that It may not be a pleasant comparison, but it is fact, companies will seek ways to create indentured servitude as it is more profitable, economics 101.

[quotes]It was only common for government employees. Why? Well if you haven't been paying attention, they have the power to give themselves perks any time they feel like such as wage increases and so forth.

No, they can only demand what the market will BEAR. If it is too much they risk having to walk off their jobs. No one can make a company agree to union demands, and no one can make worker's work.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

My father worked on a farm when he was a child from dawn to dusk doing jobs by today's standards would be considered "indentured servitude." Yet the little money he did earn from working on the fields was enough to provide for a wife and five kids at that time. He was paid much less than "minimum wage". But if you ask him today if he felt like an "indentured servant, he would say of course not, he used the skills that he had to make the little money he did to provide for his family.


Yep, it's a pity he never owned it. I'm sure he's a swell guy though, don't take it as a dig against your dad, but why would you work for someone else and not reap the full benefit of his rewards, why not buy his own?


The movement for an 8-hour workday originated among Australian workers in 1856 and was taken up by the International Workingmen’s Association, a European organization led by Karl Marx.


Wow, Ford implemented Marx's plan and it was more efficient.


Look if a company puts out a product that ends up not being what they promised to be, customers will find out. If customers were to find out that they were eating a human they would not be buying meat from that company for very long. For instance in Canada recently, there was a lysteria outbreak at Maple Leaf meats company. When people started to get sick, it hurt the company big time because people lost their trust in the company to produce safe to eat meat. It is in a companies best interest, in order to keep making profit to keep customers happy.


Only if the people ever find out. Companies hire PR companies explicitly for the purpose of covering things like these up, or denying their harmful effects, prime example is the smoking industry hiring "scientist" to go around and say cigarettes are not harmful. Additionally, it is getting harder and harder to get information into the mainstream due to media consolidation, thus limiting the ownership of these businesses to the companies that produce the products. As the ability to control information increases the value of the media outlet, the cost of entry into the market increases, thus making it more difficult to start such a business.(I respectfully request that we avoid a tobacco debate as it would be incredibly long and drawn out, that is merely an example of industry supression of information)


I hope you actually read the article because it was merely making the case that Henry Ford was responsible for the 40 hour/5 day week. You can take from it what you will but what you just stated has nothing to do with the article.


You w e r e j u s t m a k i n g t h e c a s e. . . L O L!
You forgot your conclusion "quote".


So in conclusion, it wasn’t because of unions or regulations that we have a middle class, it was in spite of them that we do, and the next time you hear otherwise, correct them immediately, the working class will thank you.



It is in SPITE of unions (workers choosing how they sell their labor) that we have a middle class.

Stupid freedom of choosing how you sell your labor destroying the middle class...





[edit on 1-1-2009 by SonOfChaos]


SR

posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Pass me the soma, I suddenly feel like John the savage from a brave new world after reading this thread


'the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced'

consumption consumption consumption is the key.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
I AM A WORKING CLASS STIFF. MY FATHER WAS A WORKING CLASS STIFF. MY GRANDFATHER WAS A WORKING CLASS STIFF.


And yet you know so little about your class history?

You talk about your own class just like my snide comment. We haven't done anything for ourselves? You want to believe all we have gained was given to us freely by our 'boss'?

What kind of working class are you exactly? You never asked for a raise? You were happy to wait till the 'boss' decided you deserved one?
You could just quit and get another job when you felt like it? Well lucky for you, most people are lucky to get one job that they have to hold on to for dear life. Most people don't have that luxury you do.

I never said I was a fan of unions either, I wasn't here supporting the union side of the argument, just the working class struggle that always seems to get re-written in history. And not all working class success has been down to unions.

But having said that unions are not a bad thing, they are a bad thing when the 'owners' don't want to allow the workers to be organised, use their power and influence to disrupt the unions to the point they become what they have, useless.

Unions are needed in big industry, otherwise the lowest workers, the unskilled particularly, will have no voice at all.

Again you are just giving credit to the boss for something the workers had been struggling to secure for years, before either Henry, or the government, implemented it. As a working class person I don't know how can you dismiss your own class like you are.

[edit on 1/1/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfChaos

Yep, it's a pity he never owned it. I'm sure he's a swell guy though, don't take it as a dig against your dad, but why would you work for someone else and not reap the full benefit of his rewards, why not buy his own?


He eventually did buy some of his own land using the money he had earned working for other people. Much of that money went to his father to support the rest of the family while trying to support his own. When he decided to move to texas, he had a wife and five kids and not a whole lot of money because the exchange rate was so terrible.(peso to american dollar). When he was in texas he had enough money to rent a motel for a month and a little bit of food but not nearly enough. He went to work immediately on a farm in Texas. Now that he was actually keeping his wealth (even though his wage in those days were "deplorable") He eventually bought a used car and a was able to rent a home.


Wow, Ford implemented Marx's plan and it was more efficient.


Ford recognized that if more people could afford to buy his product he could sell more. But he had to make sure he was still making a profit and not increasing the price of his product to the point that other people couldn't afford it. In essence, it was because his product was so successful that he could afford to pay his workers more and cut their hours.


Only if the people ever find out. Companies hire PR companies explicitly for the purpose of covering things like these up, or denying their harmful effects, prime example is the smoking industry hiring "scientist" to go around and say cigarettes are not harmful.


How often are these PR firms actually effective? And yet how many people still smoke despite that fact. (BTW I smoke)


Additionally, it is getting harder and harder to get information into the mainstream due to media consolidation, thus limiting the ownership of these businesses to the companies that produce the products.


I disagree completely that is harder to find information on products. The internet for example where every person is a consumer reporter. That information is all over the place. There is not one product on the market that I cannot find information on. For instance if I buy a recently released drug and it causes me sickness, I will let my doctor know and I can also tell my experiences to a website such as this or a major media outlet where they are looking for a "juicy" story.


As the ability to control information increases the value of the media outlet, the cost of entry into the market increases, thus making it more difficult to start such a business.


Start what kind of business? Media outlet? Welcome to the internet.


You w e r e j u s t m a k i n g t h e c a s e. . . L O L!
You forgot your conclusion "quote".





It is in SPITE of unions (workers choosing how they sell their labor) that we have a middle class.

Stupid freedom of choosing how you sell your labor destroying the middle class...


He was merely making the case that the widely held belief that unions are solely responsible for modern day wages and working conditions is false. That's all.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SR
Pass me the soma, I suddenly feel like John the savage from a brave new world after reading this thread


'the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced'

consumption consumption consumption is the key.



Are you saying that he was wrong to state that? Why or why not? Tell me how much stuff do you buy while you are at work?



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And yet you know so little about your class history?


And what class would that be? I have my individual history.


You talk about your own class just like my snide comment. We haven't done anything for ourselves?


Not as a group or "class". I have done something for myself as an individual. My success does not depend on a "class" success. My success comes from my own work.


You want to believe all we have gained was given to us freely by our 'boss'?


No. What we gain we gain as individuals. Skills, talents, work ethic, etc.. is uniquely an individual trait. A class or group does not define who I am or what I can do. A company pays me because of my skills and talents.


What kind of working class are you exactly? You never asked for a raise? You were happy to wait till the 'boss' decided you deserved one?


I don't get a job at a place if I don't think the wages are that good to begin with. After that, because of my work ethic and my skills I have always gotten raises before scheduled reviews. Not because of some third party speaking for me, but because the company sees me as an asset that is productive and gives them a better service or product.


You could just quit and get another job when you felt like it? Well lucky for you, most people are lucky to get one job that they have to hold on to for dear life. Most people don't have that luxury you do.


In North America, Europe etc everyone has that luxury. Why? because we have vast amounts of companies that have something different to offer consumers. Companies compete for skilled workers to ensure that they have the best and the brightest building them innovative products or services.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I think I should be thanking unions in the western society. Because they make companies non profitable over here, the companies have to move their businesses elsewhere just to stay alive. By doing so, they are allowing for the first time many people to have jobs that never had any before.
The more unions make companies unprofitable, the more chineese, indians, africans, mexicans, have jobs.

That is why we should support Free trade with every nation. For example Caterpillar would like to sell their products to columbia. But right now Columbians cannot afford it because of the 15% tariff on such equipment. These tariffs are supported by unions because they say that Columbia's union presence is "too small." Because unions have such a powerful presence in the with the Democratic party, they have been able to keep such legislation in place. Meanwhile if these tariffs were removed, these workers would benefit because the company would have more customers.


But having said that unions are not a bad thing, they are a bad thing when the 'owners' don't want to allow the workers to be organised, use their power and influence to disrupt the unions to the point they become what they have, useless.


I really don't see a point of unions. You don't see Toyota workers in the sunbelt crying about low wages or terrible working conditions. Only 9% of labor in the US is unionized. Are the other 91% underpaid or slaves?


Unions are needed in big industry, otherwise the lowest workers, the unskilled particularly, will have no voice at all.


Actually that is more often than not false. For instance in non unionized businesses that have alot of lowskill work, often times workers begin at the cash register and work their way up to supervisor or manager if they stay with the company long enough. Also in assembly line type of work in nonunionized companies, the company can recognize hard work and reward while fire those that are unproductive. In unions, much of the time seniority trumps work ethic and skill and the business views their workers much more impersonally because a third party deals with employees rather than the company.


Again you are just giving credit to the boss for something the workers had been struggling to secure for years, before either Henry, or the government, implemented it. As a working class person I don't know how can you dismiss your own class like you are.


I do not make money because a group of people dictate how much I should be paid. I make money based on my skills and my work ethic. You seem to advocating this idea of a mythical battle between business owners and employees. You seem to think that a business owner never struggles or is some non human entity that has always had vast amounts of money and has unparelleled power.

What you seem to forget is most businesses start of very small where one man has an idea. You seem to think that workers should reserve the right to take money by force from the company that employs them. You forget that without these peoples ideas we wouldn't have the jobs that we do now. We would still be out in the field trying to make our way.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

How often are these PR firms actually effective? And yet how many people still smoke despite that fact.


Only successful enough to have multiple terms for it and is required study in all legal universitiess.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(term)

Let us not forget bGh and Monsanto corporation using their advertising status with fox news to supress information, this occasion failed. And Agent Orange...etc. etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

If the firms weren't effective they would not have jobs.

Cassidy and Associates...anyone...dressing up dictator Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Couldn't pay me enough to improve the image of genocidal dictators...can them though.


I disagree completely that is harder to find information on products. The internet for example where every person is a consumer reporter. That information is all over the place. There is not one product on the market that I cannot find information on. For instance if I buy a recently released drug and it causes me sickness, I will let my doctor know and I can also tell my experiences to a website such as this or a major media outlet where they are looking for a "juicy" story.


Unless it's a drug from APOTEX. You really think this is the first time this has happened...the only time...this is just one of the times it has been uncovered.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



Start what kind of business? Media outlet? Welcome to the internet.


I think the internet is an absolute godsend in this manner but the general public is still almost entirely informed through Radio & Television. Having worked in radio their is no question I could operate a radio station, I've got everything required right here in my house INCLUDING all the parts needed to cobble together the amplifiers and transmitters but government regulation prevents me from having access to the airwaves cause if the public had open access no one could make money on them(I would need an attenae though). Additionally the ability to restrict access to these airwaves has such a high value that the price to bid on them sets a barrier to entry is impossible despite the limited technological requirements. This limits voices predominately to those who have acceptable views to large businesses whom drive the cost up out of the reach of entrepreneur. This reduces competition and lowers consumer choices.



He was merely making the case that the widely held belief that unions are solely responsible for modern day wages and working conditions is false. That's all.


And I keep saying is a union is nothing more than people who decide to sell their labor as a group. Hatred of union's is the hatred of the freedom to sell your product (in this case labor) in whatever manner you see fit.


I'm a capitalist and tend to make a very good living in my field, but one thing I've learned is never depend on the "benevolence" of business. Any time it is more profitable to lie than do the right thing, a company will lie, simple economics.

Oh yeah, their is a whole business now specializing in hiding consumer complaints.

Brand Reputation Management

www.searchenginejournal.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...






top topics



 
0

log in

join