Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Proposal for "General Labor Union" (was: Pupperty, labor unions)
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Sep 18, 2011, 5:22:48 AM9/18/11
to
> From: Dan Krashin <dnokrashinNOdnS...@hotmail.com.invalid>
> ... Labor unions are very diverse across time and space.
All the labor unions I ever hear about in the news seem to have two
features in common:
- Each different union deals with only one specific industry.
- A union is only for people who already have jobs, to protect the
employees from mistreatment such as dangerous working
conditions, to protect workers as much as possible from layoffs,
and to pester the management for raises in salary.
Does there exist any labor union that is for unemployed people, to
try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
of work rather than just a single type of work?
If not, I am thinking of creating a new labor union like that.
For my initial concept, see:
http://TinyURL.Com/MaasKey/GLU
Of course unemployed people have no money to spare for union dues,
so it'd have to be run purely as a "cooperative" where people
contribute their time/energy but don't have to pay any money to the
union. But something like a "march on Washington", with all
volunteers, could be useful in petitionning the government, without
the need for any money beyond traveling expenses of each individual
marcher.
Tell me if anything like this already exists, so that I won't need
to "re-invent the wheel". On the other hand, if this is new, and
you like the idea, please express interest.
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
> ... Labor unions are very diverse across time and space.
All the labor unions I ever hear about in the news seem to have two
features in common:
- Each different union deals with only one specific industry.
- A union is only for people who already have jobs, to protect the
employees from mistreatment such as dangerous working
conditions, to protect workers as much as possible from layoffs,
and to pester the management for raises in salary.
Does there exist any labor union that is for unemployed people, to
try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
of work rather than just a single type of work?
If not, I am thinking of creating a new labor union like that.
For my initial concept, see:
http://TinyURL.Com/MaasKey/GLU
Of course unemployed people have no money to spare for union dues,
so it'd have to be run purely as a "cooperative" where people
contribute their time/energy but don't have to pay any money to the
union. But something like a "march on Washington", with all
volunteers, could be useful in petitionning the government, without
the need for any money beyond traveling expenses of each individual
marcher.
Tell me if anything like this already exists, so that I won't need
to "re-invent the wheel". On the other hand, if this is new, and
you like the idea, please express interest.
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Ric Locke
Sep 18, 2011, 10:30:16 AM9/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 02:22:48 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
wrote:
It's sometimes called a "People's Union" and is a regular feature of
Socialist Governments, especially the ones basing their theology on the
Revelations of St. Karl. Details differ -- in Mexico all individual
unions are super-locals of the People's Union, whereas in the USSR the
Worker's Cooperative was considered all the Union needed and creation of
others was forbidden.
The theory behind a Union is "set a thief" -- the employer has power and
uses it to disadvantage the workers, so the proper response is to set up
an equal or stronger opposing power center. (It works reasonably well in
the short run, but the long-term consequences are only now becoming
fully apparent.) A People's Union has no power centers to focus on, and
is sufficiently powerful that the people running factories &ct. have a
strong incentive to suborn it, which they immediately set out to do. The
result is that the Local of the People's Union for any particular
employer is for all practical purposes the HR department of that
company, with Management and Union Leadership having regular dinners at
which they divide up the spoils.
Regards,
Ric
wrote:
Socialist Governments, especially the ones basing their theology on the
Revelations of St. Karl. Details differ -- in Mexico all individual
unions are super-locals of the People's Union, whereas in the USSR the
Worker's Cooperative was considered all the Union needed and creation of
others was forbidden.
The theory behind a Union is "set a thief" -- the employer has power and
uses it to disadvantage the workers, so the proper response is to set up
an equal or stronger opposing power center. (It works reasonably well in
the short run, but the long-term consequences are only now becoming
fully apparent.) A People's Union has no power centers to focus on, and
is sufficiently powerful that the people running factories &ct. have a
strong incentive to suborn it, which they immediately set out to do. The
result is that the Local of the People's Union for any particular
employer is for all practical purposes the HR department of that
company, with Management and Union Leadership having regular dinners at
which they divide up the spoils.
Regards,
Ric
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Sep 18, 2011, 1:37:50 PM9/18/11
to
> > Does there exist any labor union that is for unemployed people, to
> > try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
> > policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
> > of work rather than just a single type of work?
> > If not, I am thinking of creating a new labor union like that.
> > For my initial concept, see:
> > http://TinyURL.Com/MaasKey/GLU
> > ...
> > try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
> > policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
> > of work rather than just a single type of work?
> > If not, I am thinking of creating a new labor union like that.
> > For my initial concept, see:
> > http://TinyURL.Com/MaasKey/GLU
> > Tell me if anything like this already exists, so that I won't need
> > to "re-invent the wheel". On the other hand, if this is new, and
> > you like the idea, please express interest.
> > to "re-invent the wheel". On the other hand, if this is new, and
> > you like the idea, please express interest.
> From: Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com>
> It's sometimes called a "People's Union" and is a regular feature
> of Socialist Governments, especially the ones basing their
> theology on the Revelations of St. Karl.
Well in this case the only Socialism involved are:
> It's sometimes called a "People's Union" and is a regular feature
> of Socialist Governments, especially the ones basing their
> theology on the Revelations of St. Karl.
-1- Safety net for people who can't provide for themselves (gov't
military and police so that people don't need to raise their own
private armies just to protect their own personal property,
emergency rooms and Medi-Care and Medicaid for people who can't
afford to hire their own private 24/7 doctors and surgeons etc.,
Social Security for those too disabled or elderly to do
sufficient work to pay for basic survival needs)
-2- Employer of last resort for anyone not provided employmet in
the private sector. Not free money like Communism, just free
job-situation, where you get money *IF* you do the work, but you
get that opportunity even if you don't have the "connections" to
get a job on your own.
The General Labor Union itself of course would *not* be an instance
of Socialism. It would be based on labor exchange, where you must
contribute your efforts (various modes of petitionning and
protesting) in order to gain some of the early benefits (preference
in getting information about how to get a job through the system,
before the system is big enough that everyone can get a job just by
calling 211 and asking for a job and following instructions).
> Details differ -- in Mexico all individual unions are
> super-locals of the People's Union,
any involuntary unemployment whatsoever in Mexico, and so why would
anybody want to trespass into the USA to have a better chance of
employment?? What are they doing wrong, that my system might do
better?
> The theory behind a Union is "set a thief" -- the employer has
> power and uses it to disadvantage the workers, so the proper
> response is to set up an equal or stronger opposing power center.
indeed. But in this case there is no employer in the first place.
Instead, there are the top tenth of a percent, the "super rich" people,
who control more than 50% of all wealth, who control all the banks,
thus control which small businessess will be able to get loans to expand
operations, hence which small businessess will have funds to hire people.
As a result, anyone who isn't connected to one of these super-rich people
by a chain of loan/hire links, can't get a job. And these super-rich people
likewise control most of Government, including the Republican
Party, but also to a lesser degree the Democratic Party also, so
they control laws about taxation, and pervert our tax system to
reduce their taxes to let them get even richer so they get even
more control. If the 99.9% of people who are *not* super-rich would
join in this General Labor Union, they could force our
representatives in Congress to change the tax laws *away* from
favoring the super-rich, in favor of funding employment for
everyone. "United we stand, divided we fall" i.e. only by joining
into a union that can determine who gets elected and who goes out
of office, can we effectively counteract the effect of BIG MONEY on
our government.
Note: My personal preference for the end result of this "grass
roots" political process is that the graduated income tax will be
extended per Jan Schakowsky's proposal to add new IRS cutpoints
above $373,650, and tax at a successively higher rate any portion
of income above those successively higher cut points. Quoting from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/jan-schakowsky-income-tax_n_836624.html
$1-10 million: 45%
$10-20 million: 46%
$20-100 million: 47%
$100 million to $1 billion: 48%
$1 billion and over: 49%
I would like the GLU to petition all members of Congressional to
immediately pass that bill just as a starter, but eventually to
change it to more like this:
$1-3 million: 45%
$3-10 million: 55%
$10-20 million: 60%
$20-100 million: 65%
$100 million to $1 billion: 70%
$1 billion and over: 80%
Explanation of that big jump for all income over $3 million: To my
mind, nobody in the world, not even a CEO of a major corporation,
deserves more than $1000/hr for their individual labors, and it's
not healthy for anyone to work more than 60 hours per week. That's
an absolute maximum of $60,000 personal income per week. Taking the
work-year as 50 weeks, that equals $3 million per year. Any amount
over $3 million per year isn't really earned, it's unearned, as if
they gambled and got lucky and won the jackpot, and consequently
there's no reason not to tax it severely to pay for a guarantee
that everyone who wants to work can have a job.
Quoting a quote from:
http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2877&catid=22
The most popular way to reduce the deficit, according to 81% of
Americans? Put a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more
than $1 million per year.
-- NBC/Wall St. Journal Poll, March 2, 2011
So if it's so popular, then why hasn't the bill passed yet? Because
there's no organization to petition everyone to pass it, which is
why we need my proposed GLU, not just to petition for the added
revenue, but also to say where the extra revenue will be used in a
way that will directly benefit the huge number of currently
unemployed people, a direct immediate relief for suffering/crisis,
in addition to reducing the deficit, which is more of a "feel good"
and longterm benefit. One big increase in revenue, directed towards
both kinds of benefit, ought to increase the appeal to potential
GLU members and get them all "off their butts" to get the bill
passed etc.
> (It works reasonably well in the short run, but the long-term
> consequences are only now becoming fully apparent.)
Union", namely Mexico, has NEVER had zero involuntary unemployment,
it doesn't seem that you have cited any example truly similar to
what I've proposed, thus the long-term consequences of zero
involuntary unemployment have never been seen, so just what are you
talking about??
> A People's Union has no power centers to focus on, and is
> sufficiently powerful that the people running factories &ct. have
> a strong incentive to suborn it, which they immediately set out
> to do.
and other scripting methods which allow the organization of the
Union as well as checks-and-balances and open reporting on a
realtime basis to be fully automated, thus it would be *possible*
to build a system that couldn't be suborned. Here in California,
enough high-tech workers are currently unemployed, and hence would
benefit from the proposed GLU, and would be harmed if the system
were corrupted/suborned, that I believe we could keep it honest.
Note: My current ongoing project, before this new GLU idea, a sort
of "labor bank", is outlined here: http://TinyURL.Com/NewEco
Although it's an alternative to the money-based economic system,
using labor-credits instead of national currency as the unit of
exchange, it could also be used as a "ForEx" between dollars and
labor-credits, and thus it would provide a framework for
establishing the employer of last resort. I.e. the GLU could
petition the government to either:
- set up their own system for employer of last resort, or
- fund NewEco to sufficient degree that it can act as employer of
last resort.
Would anybody like to help me firm up the proposal for the GLU
and/or join with me to actually start building membership in the
GLU and consequently begin planning some petitionning activities?
Or would anyone like to help me build NewEco, or even just suggest
which directions of growth of NewEco would be most valued by users?
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Suzanne Blom
Sep 18, 2011, 2:46:45 PM9/18/11
to
belongs.
Ric Locke
Sep 18, 2011, 5:26:16 PM9/18/11
to
There is no particular value in spending a great deal of time addressing
this further demonstration of why the Bible includes "covetousness"
among the Ten No-Nos, but this:
this further demonstration of why the Bible includes "covetousness"
among the Ten No-Nos, but this:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:37:50 -0700, Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
wrote:
> If there really is a People's Union in Mexico, then why is there
> any involuntary unemployment whatsoever in Mexico, and so why would
> anybody want to trespass into the USA to have a better chance of
> employment?? What are they doing wrong, that my system might do
> better?
Because of precisely the weak point of all such systems: it constitutes
a power center, and as such is attractive to power-seekers; and, since
people who already have a modicum of power are at an advantage when
seeking further power, the net result was, is, and always will be a net
extension of the oligarchy. That can be postponed somewhat by a
sufficiently robust campaign of murdering the existing oligarchs, but
the long-term effect is to generate a new oligarchy.
Reply-to set to exclude rec.arts.sf.composition, which group gets
annoyed at this sort of political bullshit.
Regards,
Ric
Chris Dolley
Sep 19, 2011, 3:29:46 AM9/19/11
to
"Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" <seeWeb...@rem.intarweb.org> a
écrit dans le message de news:REM-2011...@Yahoo.Com...
>> From: Dan Krashin <dnokrashinNOdnS...@hotmail.com.invalid>
>> ... Labor unions are very diverse across time and space.
>
> All the labor unions I ever hear about in the news seem to have two
> features in common:
> - Each different union deals with only one specific industry.
> - A union is only for people who already have jobs, to protect the
> employees from mistreatment such as dangerous working
> conditions, to protect workers as much as possible from layoffs,
> and to pester the management for raises in salary.
>
> Does there exist any labor union that is for unemployed people, to
> try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
> policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
> of work rather than just a single type of work?
>
In the UK there used to be a Claimants Union. A quick Google confirms it
>> ... Labor unions are very diverse across time and space.
>
> All the labor unions I ever hear about in the news seem to have two
> features in common:
> - Each different union deals with only one specific industry.
> - A union is only for people who already have jobs, to protect the
> employees from mistreatment such as dangerous working
> conditions, to protect workers as much as possible from layoffs,
> and to pester the management for raises in salary.
>
> Does there exist any labor union that is for unemployed people, to
> try to obtain jobs for them, to petition government to establish
> policies that produce jobs, and which are general across all types
> of work rather than just a single type of work?
>
still exists in a fractured state. It was created back in the 70s or 80s to
represent the unemployed.
Chris
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Sep 20, 2011, 2:03:24 AM9/20/11
to
> From: Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World
"The Industrial Workers of the World"
Most of the work proposed in my system will be online
information-technology work rather than industrial work, so their
union would seem to be off-topic in that respect.
"The IWW contends that ... the wage system should be abolished."
Where can I find a definition of that? I have no opposition to
pay-for-work, in fact I am totally opposed to Communist labor
whereby there's no incentive to work because your benefits vary
according to your need rather than according to work. Rather I
favor keeping work-for-pay, but with that available to *everyone*
instead of just those with connections to the super-rich who
currently control the money supply. To break away from the
super-rich, the only change I'd make in the work-for-pay system
itself is to stop using $money$ and start using labor-credits
instead, because just about everyone can work to earn
labor-credits, at which point nearly everyone can become employer
themselves. No need to get money to be an employer. Please browse
http://TinyURL.Com/NewEco for more info about how I plan to use
labor-credits as an alternate form of standard currency to break
away from our super-rich slavemasters.
"In 1908 a group led by Daniel DeLeon argued that political action
through DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party (SLP) was the best way to
attain the IWW's goals. The other faction, led by Vincent Saint
John, William Trautmann, and Big Bill Haywood, believed that
direct action in the form of strikes, propaganda, and boycotts was
more likely to accomplish sustainable gains for working people;
they were opposed to arbitration and to political affiliation."
I'm more interested in people not currently "working" because none
of the very few people with lots of money has any need for our
services. Also, I have no interest in strikes, because after all if
there's plenty of employment for everyone than anyone currently
with a job who is severely displeased with that job can phase in
some other job and eventually totally quit the displeasing job.
"The city of Berkeley's recycling is picked up, sorted, processed
and sent out all through two different IWW organized enterprises."
Now that's more like what I envision, a union that actually creates
new job opportunities.
"To counteract management sending in the Salvation Army band to
cover up the Wobbly speakers, Joe Hill wrote parodies of Christian
hymns"
Hey, I've been writing anti-Christian ditties too, including some
recently to the tune of so-called Christmas carols. Maybe the IWW
could hire me to do that sort of work for them?
http://www.iww.org/en/content/organizing-contact-form
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to
prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
What code is in the image?: * _______________
Enter the characters shown in the image.
I'm unemployed, have no money to even buy food much less a new
computer with more than 8MB of RAM capable of running a
full-service (images etc.) Web browser directly from my computer
over PPP dialup, no way to view images when using VT100 TELNET to
Unix shell and lynx from there to the Web, so obviously IWW
deliberately discriminates against low-income disabled people such
as myself, so they can fuck themselves.
Anybody reading this who *can* view captchas, please fill out their
contact form and point them at *my* anti-spam device which works
just fine on text-only terminals, by asking user to fill in missing
word:
tinyurl.com/uh3t
[Contact me]
http://calrobert.blackapplehost.com/contactRobert.php
For a more elaborate use of missing-word technology, go to
http://TinyURL.Com/Portl1 and follow link to the current portal and
create an account of your own which will require answering a
randomly selected missing-word question from a set of over a
hundred questions+answers in a table in a MySQL database.
With the near-universal availability of PHP in the Apache server,
in which it's virtually trivial to write a script to test user's
responses to missing-word questions, there's really no excuse for
JPEG/GIF image captchas.
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
> The Wobblies. Not as active as they used to be, but I have a
> friend who belongs.
Thanks for trying. I did a Google search and found:
> friend who belongs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World
"The Industrial Workers of the World"
Most of the work proposed in my system will be online
information-technology work rather than industrial work, so their
union would seem to be off-topic in that respect.
"The IWW contends that ... the wage system should be abolished."
Where can I find a definition of that? I have no opposition to
pay-for-work, in fact I am totally opposed to Communist labor
whereby there's no incentive to work because your benefits vary
according to your need rather than according to work. Rather I
favor keeping work-for-pay, but with that available to *everyone*
instead of just those with connections to the super-rich who
currently control the money supply. To break away from the
super-rich, the only change I'd make in the work-for-pay system
itself is to stop using $money$ and start using labor-credits
instead, because just about everyone can work to earn
labor-credits, at which point nearly everyone can become employer
themselves. No need to get money to be an employer. Please browse
http://TinyURL.Com/NewEco for more info about how I plan to use
labor-credits as an alternate form of standard currency to break
away from our super-rich slavemasters.
"In 1908 a group led by Daniel DeLeon argued that political action
through DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party (SLP) was the best way to
attain the IWW's goals. The other faction, led by Vincent Saint
John, William Trautmann, and Big Bill Haywood, believed that
direct action in the form of strikes, propaganda, and boycotts was
more likely to accomplish sustainable gains for working people;
they were opposed to arbitration and to political affiliation."
I'm more interested in people not currently "working" because none
of the very few people with lots of money has any need for our
services. Also, I have no interest in strikes, because after all if
there's plenty of employment for everyone than anyone currently
with a job who is severely displeased with that job can phase in
some other job and eventually totally quit the displeasing job.
"The city of Berkeley's recycling is picked up, sorted, processed
and sent out all through two different IWW organized enterprises."
Now that's more like what I envision, a union that actually creates
new job opportunities.
"To counteract management sending in the Salvation Army band to
cover up the Wobbly speakers, Joe Hill wrote parodies of Christian
hymns"
Hey, I've been writing anti-Christian ditties too, including some
recently to the tune of so-called Christmas carols. Maybe the IWW
could hire me to do that sort of work for them?
http://www.iww.org/en/content/organizing-contact-form
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to
prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
What code is in the image?: * _______________
Enter the characters shown in the image.
I'm unemployed, have no money to even buy food much less a new
computer with more than 8MB of RAM capable of running a
full-service (images etc.) Web browser directly from my computer
over PPP dialup, no way to view images when using VT100 TELNET to
Unix shell and lynx from there to the Web, so obviously IWW
deliberately discriminates against low-income disabled people such
as myself, so they can fuck themselves.
Anybody reading this who *can* view captchas, please fill out their
contact form and point them at *my* anti-spam device which works
just fine on text-only terminals, by asking user to fill in missing
word:
tinyurl.com/uh3t
[Contact me]
http://calrobert.blackapplehost.com/contactRobert.php
For a more elaborate use of missing-word technology, go to
http://TinyURL.Com/Portl1 and follow link to the current portal and
create an account of your own which will require answering a
randomly selected missing-word question from a set of over a
hundred questions+answers in a table in a MySQL database.
With the near-universal availability of PHP in the Apache server,
in which it's virtually trivial to write a script to test user's
responses to missing-word questions, there's really no excuse for
JPEG/GIF image captchas.
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
Sep 20, 2011, 2:29:29 AM9/20/11
to
> From: "Chris Dolley" <chris.dol...@worldonline.fr>
(or find already existing), but Google search shows:
http://tynesideclaimantsunion.wordpress.com/
That union seems to be concerned only with rights of getting
Social Security (pay for being disabled or elderly), not
employment (pay for work).
http://www.newhamclaimants.org.uk/Newham1.htm
Likewise seems concerned with welfare (public assistance)
benefits rather than opportunity to get paid for work.
http://j12.org/lothian/ec/reed.htm
"their actions - processing claimants for crap, low-paid
jobs - are not without consequences"
I'd be glad to get a low-paying job. I'd be glad to get paid
the legal minimum wage of $8/hr to write my high-qualify
computer software. That'd be more money than I'm currently
getting for my work, which is ZERO, NIL, NADA.
"The New Deal does not help the unemployed. It is compulsory cheap
labour. It is an extension of Tory schemes like Project Work. It
attacks the unemployed and workers. It is a major step towards the
introduction of USA-style workfare."
The USA doesn't have any system of workfare. Unemployed people here
in the USA are given no opportunity whatsoever to work and get
paid, not even "trial work", not even an unpaid job to get
evaluated for subsequent paid work. We in USA can't even get free
job training, except on rare occasion from charities such as
Catholic Charities, nothing like that ever from the Government.
Where do people in the UK get such wrong ideas about what's
available in the USA?
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
> In the UK there used to be a Claimants Union. A quick Google
> confirms it still exists in a fractured state. It was created
> back in the 70s or 80s to represent the unemployed.
Representing the unemployed is closer to what I'm trying to create
> confirms it still exists in a fractured state. It was created
> back in the 70s or 80s to represent the unemployed.
(or find already existing), but Google search shows:
http://tynesideclaimantsunion.wordpress.com/
That union seems to be concerned only with rights of getting
Social Security (pay for being disabled or elderly), not
employment (pay for work).
http://www.newhamclaimants.org.uk/Newham1.htm
Likewise seems concerned with welfare (public assistance)
benefits rather than opportunity to get paid for work.
http://j12.org/lothian/ec/reed.htm
"their actions - processing claimants for crap, low-paid
jobs - are not without consequences"
I'd be glad to get a low-paying job. I'd be glad to get paid
the legal minimum wage of $8/hr to write my high-qualify
computer software. That'd be more money than I'm currently
getting for my work, which is ZERO, NIL, NADA.
"The New Deal does not help the unemployed. It is compulsory cheap
labour. It is an extension of Tory schemes like Project Work. It
attacks the unemployed and workers. It is a major step towards the
introduction of USA-style workfare."
The USA doesn't have any system of workfare. Unemployed people here
in the USA are given no opportunity whatsoever to work and get
paid, not even "trial work", not even an unpaid job to get
evaluated for subsequent paid work. We in USA can't even get free
job training, except on rare occasion from charities such as
Catholic Charities, nothing like that ever from the Government.
Where do people in the UK get such wrong ideas about what's
available in the USA?
Google-groups-search-key: imtrgfdi
0 new messages