So, I wanted to go a bit more into what I think about this, since the rail strike seems to have brought the issue to a head, and I feel like I should discuss it.
I kind of feel sympathetic to both sides. I despite my anti work stance, I value a functioning society and don't support my ideals conflicting with that. But at the same time, if people are effectively forced to work, then that's de facto slavery to me. If strikes happen, they can cripple the nation. Rail strikes could shut down our logistics infrastructure in many ways. And imagine what would happen if hospital workers striked and people on life support risked dying. I mean, the consequences of strikes and fights for worker rights can be destructive in some cases. Also consider the fact that in some cases, workers' demands become too much for the economy to sustain. That's why the fed tends to balance unemployment with inflation. If unemployment gets too low and bargaining power increases too much, inflation is the result. Workers demand more money and better working conditions. Businesses are forced to give them but pass on costs to the customer. Everything costs more. People complain about cost of living increases. They demand more money. The cycle continues. At some point the government DOES need to step in and just say "ENOUGH!"
At the same time if the rights of workers are curtailed too much, they can end up over worked and not having their demands listened to. This is what I feel like is happening with rail workers. Sure these workers are well paid, but they put up with a metric crapton of crap. And for them it isn't even about the pay, it's about the hours, lack of sick pay, and working conditions. The same is arguably said of the hospital industry. I know a lot of people who work in healthcare make good money. It's a highly skilled industry that pays extremely well, which is why people seek employment there. But...the conditions are horrid. Extremely long hours being arguably the worst aspect of it. And of course, workers are just expected to endure it and are guilted by employers to put up with the crap as striking would be screwing their patients.
Honestly, I could arguably see an argument against organized labor pushing strikes in critical industries, as doing that would cripple the country, and possibly kill people in some industries. BUT...I also feel like workers should be accommodated too. I guess, given my UBI oriented "indepentarian" mindset, perhaps UBI is a superior solution here. After all, UBI gives people individual rights and the ability to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs. And it could arguably fix the market. The problem seems to be that given the forced labor social contract we have, most grievances are solved with throwing money at the problem. Hence why rail and medical workers can be paid so well, but still have to put up with hellish working conditions. You're gonna have to get a job somewhere so might as well get paid well, right? But if people were free not to work at all, they might choose not to, and employers might have to actually cave on the actual working conditions to draw workers back. In some cases it's not about the money. It's about the working conditions.
And of course, UBI putting quitting in the hands of the individual rather than an organized movement, people could quit without shocking the economy. Rather than a union shutting down the entire industry at once and crippling the country as a result, people would quit. And they would have trouble hiring. But some would still work in those industries. And of course, employers would have to rely on appealing to workers to draw people to those industries. After all, most people do want to work to some extent, but they want to be treated well, have work life balance, and be paid decently well. I personally would rather work a job for say, $40k that gives me a decent work life balance than one that pays $120k but makes me work 80 hour weeks. No amount of money is worth my soul. What's the point in working a job that i give my life to working, only to be able to afford a house and a fancy car i never use but going to and from work? What's the point in being able to afford any luxury i want if i never have time to enjoy it? That's the paradox of modern American capitalism. People with time are poor. People who make good money have no time to do anything. Maybe I'm "lazy", but hey, maybe Doreen Ford was onto something when she said laziness is a virtue.
But yes, maybe UBI really IS the solution here, as it gives people money, lets them choose to go where they want in life, but it likely wouldn't shut down critical industries.
Mind you, I don't think striking should be illegal for the most part. But if the industries really are that critical to the well being of the nation, then perhaps there should be a mechanism to break organized labor when needed, while still preserving its ability to operate as much as possible.
I think the problem here comes down to the "traditional left" and their simultaneous love for work, and belief that withholding labor in an organized is a necessary part of their model to gain concessions from employers. It just causes leftists to put their faith in organized labor, which creates this dilemma in the first place. They simultaneously believe in forcing people to work, and their mechanism for solving disputes is workers shutting down the entire industry to force concessions. If people weren't forced to work, and people were given individual power to withhold their labor, perhaps the attrition would force employers to respond to demands without threatening the core industries.
After all, they would lose workers, but not all of them at once, and they would be forced to eventually make changes to attract new workers, while still having some do some of the work to keep the core of the industry afloat, if that makes sense. It would put pressure on employers to increase wages and improve working conditions without shutting down the entire industry.
Idk, that's just my take on it. Generally speaking I value the right to say no over more traditional organized means to improve the work place. The left just values collective action too much and I feel like that's its achilles heel, for better or for worse. I feel like my solutions could probably give both sides what they want. We can keep industries running, while using the macro effects of the economy to force concessions for workers. It's possible it may not work as well as I think it would, as either the fed would reduce the number of jobs available to keep things in favor of workers, but if those jobs aren't necessary for the economy then that's their prerogative. It's also possible that UBI won't be high enough to guarantee a true freedom to say no, but I still would support the highest SUSTAINABLE amount to give people the most rights possible.
Keep in mind, I'm an idealist, but I also temper that with pragmatism. I do understand it's possible that an economy with true freedom to not work may be a while off, but I would like to push society in that direction as much as humanly possible. I also understand that beyond a certain point, workers can demand more than an economy can reasonably sustain, and in that sense, their push for better pay and working conditions might just lead to higher costs for society in the form of inflation and the like. I'm okay with labor bending society to get what it wants, but once things start to actually break and fall apart, uh...yeah it can go too far.
Again, I support what can be SUSTAINABLY done. if it isn't sustainable, then at some point the government is gonna have to step in and tell people no. Some leftists might not like that, but they are also tribalistic and not looking at the big picture.
As far as going back to the railroad strikes, yes, I absolutely believe that the Biden administration, if they truly care about stability, rather than just forcing workers to put up with crappy conditions while increasing pay to shut them up, they should push the railroad industry to treat people better in the first place. This isn't a matter of what they're asking being unsustainable or too much. You could have either pushed for more pay (and given they're already making 6 figures, that's arguably enough), or better working conditions. They should have chosen better working conditions. Isn't it better to make $130k a year and have sick days and weekends off than $160k a year and be a de facto slave? Seriously. Think about it. So yeah, throwing more money at them and declaring their strikes illegal is stupid. I'm more discussing the concept of critical industries vs worker rights/freedoms in a more abstract environment with this post, using the above situation as a springboard.
No comments:
Post a Comment