History Department Forum Index History Department
CSW'S History Department
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 




LAST POST OF THE YEAR!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    History Department Forum Index -> Labor History Mod 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lilycp



Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:11 am    Post subject: LAST POST OF THE YEAR! Reply with quote

Please read ch. 11 in your text books and post a thoughtful response on our forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lilycp



Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the bottom of page 302 there is an astrix with a quote “Unions, you know, are the worst employers around.” I thought this was a tab bit hypocritical given that the whole point of a union is to create better working conditions for their members. It said that while the unions endorsed day care for the union members it didn’t provide any childcare for the workers.
Something else I found hypocritical in a way, and it might just be that I live in the 21 century, was in 1993 the AFL-CIO executive council refused to endorse birth control including 2 of the 3 women on the board. It seemed odd to me that given the chance to have control over their ability to become pregnant, these women would choose to oppose the opportunity.

Question:
what do you think Federal Reserve chairmen Paul Volcker meant when he said “the standard of living of the average American worker has to decline”(282)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eraskin



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the cartoon that was in this chapter showed a new kind of workers, the post-industrial workers. For some reason, finally seeing it visually helped me understand one major difference between the labor movement now and what it used to be, and the arguments that people like Federal Reserve chairmen Paul Volcker say that American workers are just too greedy. As blue-collar jobs move away from manual labor, from work that is physically strenuous, people in charge are more likely to ignore the workers demands for a more respectful working environment.
Also, something that completely shocked me was the increase in interest on loans. “interest paid on loans rose from 30 percent of corporate after-tax profits in 1979 to nearly 140 percent in 1986.” (281) That seems out of control. I suppose that was the idea, so that there was no control on things like that what with Reagan’s deregulations…but still. I just don’t see how that’s legal.

My question is when will it stop? That’s quite a loaded vague question, but is there a point when that kind of inflation will be legal? Is it possible for the labor movement to succeed? What would that even look like?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
canderson



Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lily -- I was planning on posing that question, incidentally, but I guess I'll try to answer it.

Though I'm not sure exactly what his stance was on poverty, it seems that he was saying that for the greater good (the economy, corporate profits), the worker will have to suck it up. Reading that made my heart sink, after all we've read about the slow and painful process of building up some kind of quality of life for the working class over a hundred years (fighting every step of the way for every little thing), because he seems to be implying that the working class has it pretty good, and must sacrifice a little bit.

This whole chapter was a downer, actually. It seems like workers, unionized and otherwise, were fighting harder and harder for less and less. The old mechanism of the strike, which had become somewhat respected, it seemed, by employers as a negotiation tool, proved useless as corporations casually crushed branches for slight spikes in profits or simply because people were causing too much trouble. The book really wants to place this on Reagan, and while I would agree that it was his deregulations that made this kind of thing possible, it was really the companies themselves (and the people at every level of government who did nothing) who demoralized labor through the 80's.

My question is really vague and not directly related, but hey, it's the last post and I want to pose this: while Reagan's "trickle-down" economics obviously didn't work in the 80's, is there any truth to the root of that concept; that a society where the rich upper class is allowed to grow is beneficial to everyone? It seems like an obvious "no" after reading about the working class, but it's true that with a lot of money in one place, big strides can be made. Think about cutting-edge scientific research, and all the private-funded grants that make medical research and cures possible. Would that kind of advancement be possible in a more equal society? Is progress worth the hierarchy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wquinn



Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 15
Location: undisclosed, MA.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In response to Ziz's question, i think a country definitely prospers when there is no cap on businesses. that sounds horrible, i know. And the people themselves are living in horrible conditions, but i think a countries economic growth lives off of greed, and likewise equalizing factors like unions i consider to hinder economic growth, although they help the workers and the morality of the society. Communism is a system that seeks to equalize, and Communist countries are known for having serious economic problems, even after the 'formative years'. I think an unchecked capitalist system is not fair at all, but i think it gains wealth for the country faster then any other political system.

I have a question: Since most material labor has, by now, left the country, will there ever be a major labor movement in places like indonesia and latin america? Why wouldn't there be, if the situation is similar to the one American workers were in 100 years ago? is there anything different about the modern era that keeps them from unionizing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maxwell A



Joined: 10 May 2010
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The beginning of the chapter talks about the effects of outsourcing and globalization on economic insecurity and the labor movement. Corporations were moving jobs overseas to low wage areas. This reduced jobs and decreased the power of labor unions in the US. Cheap labor was even available in Mexico close to American borders. in a globalized world it was beneficial to all parties in command of big business to outsource.

What is unclear to me is the relationship of global competition to the Reagan administration policy. It seems that globalization was mostly an excuse for Reagan's antiunion and anti-labor policies. They had a conservative ideology that was pro-business and anti-labor. This seemed like the major force behind their policies. The result of Reagan tax and deregulation policy was there was growing income inequality in the US.

I disagree with Will and Ziz about the effects of income inequality. There was growing income inequality in the 1980s but it was not a more technically innovative period in American history. Income inequality can result from technological innovation but it is not the causality for it.

My question is why did labor and progressive democrats not have more effective strategies to counter the Reagan policies. Why was the Reagan administration so successful in pushing its anti-worker policies when it hurt some many workers?

also, is globalization in effect the end to american labor?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gchai



Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Posts: 16
Location: In your closet

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My question is when will it stop? That’s quite a loaded vague question, but is there a point when that kind of inflation will be legal? Is it possible for the labor movement to succeed? What would that even look like?

I don't think its really possible for that to happen. Whats going to happen is that it may be proposed, senators and members of the house get bribed to vote no, or the supreme court will find some way to strike it down.. they're always no fun =(

Quote:
Since most material labor has, by now, left the country, will there ever be a major labor movement in places like indonesia and latin america? Why wouldn't there be, if the situation is similar to the one American workers were in 100 years ago? is there anything different about the modern era that keeps them from unionizing?

I never really thought about this... But I think the mentality is different. In America, you can be rich!!! If not, too bad, your stuck with what you have!
Also, I think its because the workers are extremely dispensable, and a strike would just end in them losing their jobs.

One way, however, is to have a lot of employees commit suicide *coughFOXCONN* and get noticed by the world, and if enough suicides happen, maybe the people who they make things for worry for their reputation *coughAPPLE* and offer to help raise wages.

Outsourcing is becoming a big thing...
_________________
WARNING: I am not responsible for what i type above because apparently, my cats learned how to type
gabechai.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
jpark



Joined: 07 May 2010
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reagan Revolution seemed like a tough time for business owners and workers because it says in the book that it “blended ideology with greed”, and therefore various people had to suffer through national economic changes because they wanted to do better and . It all began with downfall of rate of profit in 1960s due to competition w/ Europe and Japan, unemployment increased, inflation rose, more wages started to fall, and then soon people became unemployed and poor. Then business tried to improve this crisis by doing business with other companies, spending a lot of money on investing & buying shares…etc Later on, new management was created and therefore, there were some hope for foreign direct investments, which the majority was cheap labor. my question is what changes did cheap labor provide to the society during 1980s?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asilver



Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

im always surprised at how much the police and the goverment in general is willing to support buissneses over people. for instance in the Phelps dodge copper corperation, were the police and the national gaurd not only used tear gass on a buch of the miners wives, but went as far to fabricate evidence against many of the strikes leaders. The best reason i could think of for tthe police to do this is that they would be afraid that the strrike could economicly ruin the town which is primarly based on mining.
why do you think unions had such a hard time prospering in this time period?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    History Department Forum Index -> Labor History Mod 7 All times are GMT + 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum hosted by ForumsLand.com - 100% free forum. Powered by phpBB 2.