Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:14:59 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: WG: STRIKE


Hi all
 
> First of all I have to get something straight: strike is not strike. You
> have to distinguish between a worker strike and a consumer strike. That's
> really not the same thing.

boycott and strike are different things, but they are similar in the
sense
of that they are forms of resistance.

> WORKER STRIKE: If some workers go on strike they violat the employment
> contract, they show that they are not thankful for having a job and they are
> no longer loyal to their employer. 

this sort of thing is *so* annoying! Sure they violate the "employment
contract"
The employment contract is simply a contract in which one party agrees
to
obey another (i.e. are "loyal"). No capitalist firm could operate in any
other way -- the costs of re-negotiating workers' contracts would be too
high.

as for "loyality" to their employer, well, how "loyal" is the boss who
fires the worker when they don't do what they are told? Obedience is
not a basis for loyality.

That is what a company should really not
> accept and such a worker strike is economically not justifiable. 

Actually, it usually is economically justifiable from the workers' point
of view, thats why they do it!

If a worker
> isn't content with his salary he should choose the smart way and look for
> another job. 

which assumes, as others point out, that workers are in a position to
get a job easily. Which is not the case, usually, as there exists
unemployment. In fact, as unemployment drops workers *do* use their
power of exit (as well as other means) to increase their wages and
conditions. This the bosses don't like and harms capitalism...

which means that:

>(Free choice of job is a condition of the market economy, 

Is a half truth, as it helps undermine capitalism when unemployment
drops. This is the rationale for the "Natural Rate of Unemployment"
and NAIRU, which is the "theory" which underlies the economic
policy of all capitalist countries these days. Unemployment is
encouraged to weaken the power of workers, including the free
choice of work.

Interesting other point. The natural rate argues that low
unemployment generates inflation as profits are squeezed
and firms pass on cost rises in the form of higher wages.
But neo-classical economics also argues that high unemployment
is caused by real wages being too high. So low unemployment
raises wages, while high unemployment is caused by high wages!
Talk about contradictions -- NARIU argued that low unemployment
generates high wages (no shit!) but the other part of the
economic theory says that high wages cause unemployment! 
Cannot have both now, can we?

>but
> strikes destroy the market economy!)

and so workers must either obey the boss or leave. To refuse to
obey destroys the market economy -- says it all!

Perhaps these defenders of individual freedom will ban strikes?

> CONSUMER STRIKE: An important point is the fact that a consumer strike is
> legal: 

which assumes a given set of laws. Change the law and strikes also
become
legal.

there is nothing like a consumer contract that obligates the consumer
> to buy something. 

yes, consumers do not sign a contract of obedience. Thats why workers
go on strike!

A consumer strike tries to force a company to producing
> better things, to lower the prices or to dupe the clients better. (Free
> choice of consum is a condition of the market economy, too.) So, the
> consumer strike is not really a strike.

Its a boycott! But, of course, the consumer strike is often so weak as
to be ignorable. Go on strike, things are different!

> CONNECTION WORKER STRIKE - CONSUMER STRIKE: A worker strike tries to raise
> the pays -> the company needs more money 

why don't they accept a cut in profits?

-> the company can't lower the
> prices 

Yes they can, if they cut their profits. Which they won't do, of course.
Unlike wages, profits, rent and interest *never* can rise too high!
Funny that...

-> consumer strike; A consumer strike tries to lower the prices ->
> the company needs more money -> the company can't raise the salaries ->
> worker strike.

so consumer strikes provoke workers strikes? Better ban that too!

> It's only a very simple scheme that doesn't work in practice so easy, but
> it's really very interesting....
> SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT: The workers should all quit one's job at the
> same time and then the employer would probably reconsider the situation.

that's called a strike! When all the workers stop working! Moreover,
they
realise that due to unemployment the bosses can ignore their mass
quitting
and by hiring unemployed people, so they picket the workplace (even
occupy) in order to increase their bargaining power.

> This way would be absolutely legal! But the problem is that most of the
> worker don't have the courage for doing that.

for the simple reason that they face misery and unemployment!

and, again, change the law and it become legal. what is legal and not
legal
varies!
 
hope yous find this of interest!

iain