Skip to main content

View Diary: The UPS Workers Got Their Jobs Back (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't really follow the logic here. (4+ / 0-)

    The "public" is made up of workers too.

    Solidarity extends beyond a particular union affiliation or work place.

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:00:03 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure where the confusion lies... (0+ / 0-)

      If anything your confusion is confusing lol.

      Are you implying there was intended solidarity to get the workers their jobs back? Because I see no evidence for that  unless you just mean everyone who happens to have a job is a worker and most who complained likely have jobs somewhere thus making it a solidarity issue by default (By that definition everything is a solidarity issue given almost everyone works) which seems like a silly stretch at best and hardly a basis for being confused.

      I made the point UPS was swayed by potential customer negativity if you have evidence or even just a rational to the contrary please share it.

      Other than everyone works somewhere so we are all workers line of thinking, which would only make sense if the solidarity was intended, I don't really see what is so confusing?

      Sorry don't mean to pass the buck, but please explain further and I will try to clear it up.

      When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

      by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:25:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pretty simple really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        You seemed to be making an arbitrary distinction between workers and customers, as if customers aren't workers themselves. You also seemed to be conflating the general category of workers with UPS employees.

        If customers didn't feel a sense of solidarity with the workers at UPS, why would they have complained? Why would they cared at all?

        What do you imagine the definition of Solidarity is?

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 03:54:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My confusion is obvious in that most of the... (0+ / 0-)

          world works so using the fact people happen to have jobs as a defining point for anything seems unusually broad and useless. Eating at Mcdonalds is an act of solidarity if everyone who is eating there has a job.

          I was pointing out what swayed UPS, that people who happen to have jobs complained or people who were potential/real customer complained.

          To imply its the prior is misleading at best and pure sophistry otherwise, it was the potential lose of business that swayed UPS and no point giving them undeserved props by implying they should get credit for anything less selfserving than that.

          I am self employed, have been most of my life and since I own my own company I can't get fired. Is my feeling they mishandled the situation and showed poor taste an act of solidarity? Why do I care at all? Because I'm person who believes in fair play, not because I'm a worker too.

          You have constructed an unsupported premise that those that complained did so because they have a job and were supporting other workers. I think you read far too much into it for whatever reason. It is likely some felt that way but to imply that was the root cause is more about what you wanting it to be, than anything supportable by evidence. Maybe you are right, but I'm not willing to make such a claim without something supporting it.

          I think using solidarity in such a loose way, applicable to almost anything, cheapens its value, if not completely destroys any deeper meaning the term connotes. Solidarity is labor going out of its way to support labor, not just some bad press and people who happen to work think negatively.

          Just my opinion...

          (Just to be clear had their been protests in front of UPS headquarters by unions and other work groups I could see your point, and if their was please correct me).

          When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

          by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:17:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow misused 'their' twice even! please replace... (0+ / 0-)

            with 'there' and forgive such sloppiness, only slept a few hours last night.

            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

            by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 04:34:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not all the world works. A section of humanity (0+ / 0-)

            just owns, and leverages that ownership to extract the vast majority of the productive output of those who work.

            People who work were pissed at some owners who abused some workers, in this situation.  Those owners were forced to compromise in order to protect the value of their property.

            None of this is remotely complicated for anyone outside the petite bourgeoisie.  You're not "a worker too".  "Worker", in this case, is shorthand for proletariat. You're not in it.

            What you think solidarity means isn't all that relevant to those of us who are members of the proletariat.  Your class interests are not our class interests.

            Least class conscious nation on the damn planet.  No where else would any of this need explaining.

            Is it "Gordon Gecko Democrat" week here at Dailykos?

            by JesseCW on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:21:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice of you to exclude me at face value... (0+ / 0-)

              I run a small business (real small not the fake 50 employee type) and my income is not beyond average (I do what I love not what pays) Making me just as much the 99% as you. Only difference is I won't fire myself unless I really deserve it. Nor will I alienate any potential allies through exclusionary language and trying to force reality to fit my preconceived notions

              Your language is exclusionary for the purpose of making you right, if making you right is more important than then being inclusive you are welcome to it, though you are forcing your point beyond any evidence to support just like you assumed I was someone wealthy without any evidence.

              You seem hell bent on bending reality to fit your view I see no reason to further try and open you to other views you would discount wholesale. Your post is full of so many fallacies you would need to start over from scratch to approach any reality i'm aware of.

              When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

              by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:43:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't care how big your business is. (0+ / 0-)

                You're petite bourgeoisie.  Your interests are not the same as the interests of those who own no significant capital and who must shop their labor to those who do.

                Your interests are those of the boss class.  

                That's simply a matter of recognizing reality, not "warping it".  In America, the entire concept of class consciousness has been destroyed by this bizarre invention 'The middle class'.

                Vaunted "small businesses", which typically pay less for the same work and offer few (if any) benefits compared to large industrial employers are still businesses owned by capitalists.  

                Class is not defined by income, but by capital relationships.

                No working class in history ever improved their situation by being confused about class relationships, or thinking that anyone could ever be both a boss and an ally to the proletariat.

                Is it "Gordon Gecko Democrat" week here at Dailykos?

                by JesseCW on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:50:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We are not in 18th century France as your... (0+ / 0-)

                  language implies, though the more I read your posts the more i'm willing to accept you believe you are.

                  I'm not sure you even understand what your point is, you seem to be against the middle class and wealth and capitalism and allies. So is everyone equal and poor actually your conclusion or are you just so confused thats only where logic leads but you don't let things like logic get in the way.

                  Capital relationships may define class but I would need someone to define capital relationships first to be able to tell.

                  Okay i'm done and poking is probably in poor taste, but anyone who uses "petite bourgeoisie"when speaking English is asking for some ridicule. Though given i'm thinking you really have mental issues I'm going to regret this in hindsight.

                  When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                  by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 12:09:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're now down to word salad. (0+ / 0-)

                    I strongly suggest Econ 101 at your local community college.

                    Though given i'm thinking you really have mental issues I'm going to regret this in hindsight.
                    See my sig.

                    Is it "Gordon Gecko Democrat" week here at Dailykos?

                    by JesseCW on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 12:32:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Suggesting someone has "mental issues" (0+ / 0-)

                    is against the rules of this site and could get you banned if habitual. I would have Hr'd this comment for that reason were I not already involved in a discussion with you.

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thats why I ended the convo... (0+ / 0-)

                      We are a reality based community as long as reality fits predefined conditions.

                      Unstable or not his reasoning is beyond logic or bother.

                      What would you call it?

                      When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                      by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 01:45:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What I would call it is irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

                        What is relevant is that you apparently knew what you were doing was a violation of site rules and you did it anyway.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 02:16:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Funny thing rules if you follow them all... (0+ / 0-)

                          all the time you stop thinking beyond them.

                          I follow the rules 99.99%+ but ill break them on the rarest occasion when I feel its appropriate. On that note I will also accept without pity or remorse any consequences.

                          HR if you feel its what should be done, but that won't make think different, recant my statement nor further or prevent me breaking the rules in the future.

                          I am an ally in his cause, but his need to label me as an 'other' instantly puts me against him via framing. We are on the same side of the same cause but hes looking for ways to exclude allies.

                          I think thats crazy....

                          When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                          by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 02:29:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Obviously I won't HR you, since that too is (0+ / 0-)

                            against site rules, which I suspect you already know.

                            I prefer to not indulge in hypocritical posturing.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 02:39:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please explain my hypocrisy because in this... (0+ / 0-)

                            case I am honestly completely blind to it and though I can't promise you I will, I am completely open to admitting where I am wrong should you make your point.

                            (As far as you HRing and if its allowed or not, I also believe you are welcome to break the rules where you might see fit. In this regard I assure I am not a hypocrite)

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 02:48:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh come off it (0+ / 0-)

                            Citing your violation of the rules and then violating them myself would be the definition of hypocrisy.

                            Do you really not see that?

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 03:01:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see rules differently than you... (0+ / 0-)

                            Rules are not concrete walls they are imposed boundaries that may or may not be broken. If a rule is broken or not the rule still exists but to ALWAYS follows the rules is as bad as NEVER doing so.

                            I believe in free will, but only with responsibility for accepting what may become of it. The best example is where the three seniors broken into the secure federal facility and the older lady got 3 years. The is much uproar about how unfair that is but when she issued a statement she said she knew full well she was going to get time on it and will happily server her 3 years. She can break the rules any time she wants in my book because when she does she will be fully aware she is doing it and why,  and accept the result without pity or remorse.

                            The other problem are those who break the rules because they do not respect the boundary exists at all thus not just breaking the rule but destroying it as it applies to them. When I broke the rule I knew I was doing it and totally expected I might get a donut or two, but the rule still exists for me as a boundary that I will only cross because I see a reason for it. People who break rules because they don't acknowledge the boundary exists at all are a big problem in our society and are the ones that when they get caught cry how unfair the consequences are.

                            Lastly ALWAYS following the rules also destroys the value of the boundary just like in Christianity where they say God gave you free will, but if you don't do what he says you are doomed to eternal damnation. That is not free will. If the rules are never crossed they are no longer boundaries, but barriers. A society constrained by barriers is as unfree as it gets.

                            So if you feel my remark deserves a HR you are very welcome to do so even if you think in doing so would also break the rules. There is no sound logic to support me not being able to run a red light in order to stop a bank robber, there is no hypocrisy if you feel my violation has a far more negative effect than yours.

                            Sorry for the dissertation, but once I realized you meant you were potentially the hypocrite I thought you might find my view interesting.

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 03:27:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is really not that complicated (0+ / 0-)

                            When you join DKos, it is expected that you will abide by the rules of the site. You are not compelled to post here but if you do, you are obliged to abide by those rules. If you find them too onerous, the honest course is to post elsewhere.

                            I find the comparison of civil disobedience with violating rules in order to indulge in personal insult both absurd and insulting to those whose example you have appropriated.

                            Likewise the notion that   "ALWAYS following the rules also destroys the value of the boundary..." is an abstract sophistry. The value of a boundary lies in the prevention of the negative consequences that accrue from violating it. For example: the laws against murder aren't validated by the act of murder. They are validated by the preservation of life.

                            BTW, running a red light in order to stop a bank robbery isn't justifiable, since it endangers the lives of others. That's why police, who are the only ones empowered to do such things, are equipped sirens and flashing lights. It's also why people who engage in such actions often end up facing charges themselves.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 04:28:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are welcome to your opinion, I fully respect.. (0+ / 0-)

                            it and see where you are coming from. You prefer to see the rules as barriers, things not to be broken. I am not sure which of us is right so I am perfectly willing to give your view equal value. I will not begrudge you your perspective.

                            I doubt you could say the same to me though.

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 04:40:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You seem to have a propensity for imagining you (0+ / 0-)

                            know what I think. I do wish you had an equal propensity for addressing the points I actually raised.

                            Of course if, as you say, you're really not sure of your view, I can understand and respect your hesitation.

                            Certainly I respect your right to disagree but this:

                            You prefer to see the rules as barriers, things not to be broken.
                            is not at all what I said, nor is it my opinion. It is, at best, a projection of your own thinking.

                             

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:17:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am just saying we are discussing a topic.. (0+ / 0-)

                            of philosophy which has no right answer on the meta level it can only be true or not for an individual. As such all well reasoned consistent views are equally right, though each individual will have what is right for them.

                            So I am not unsure of my view in that I am very comfortable with it, but I have no will to try and force it upon others. Its very easy for people to get stuck in a binary world view where they are right and someone else is wrong. In questions of philosophy there is no such truth so I prefer to tread very lightly with no expectations or judgement on how others view the same questions.

                            I don't 'know' what you think but the purpose of discussion is to turn thoughts into words so they can be conveyed to others, if you feel that i'm not understanding you its possible its my comprehension, its also possible you are not making yourself clear enough.

                            I must admit I don't understand what you think I am not addressing?

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:29:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Weird I replied but it got lost somehow lol (0+ / 0-)

                            Anyway, you misunderstand I am not unsure of my view its just that we are discussing a question of philosophy which as I see it has no correct answer (Given some semblance reasoning and consistency) at the meta level it can only be true or false for an individual.

                            Too often people reduce things to binary with one thing right and another wrong, oddly enough they always end up with themselves right and others wrong. I have no such issue we are both right and I have no will to push my view on you which is why I backed off and said what I said.

                            I must admit I did think it very likely you would go binary on me telling me how I was wrong, but I do not 'know' what you think. That is the point of discussion to turn thoughts into words so they can be conveyed to others. If you feel I am not understanding you it could be my comprehension, it could also be you are not making yourself clear.

                            Honestly I do not understand what you think I am not addressing?

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:46:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay it just appeared sorry for double post. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:46:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This explains a great deal (0+ / 0-)

                            We've been talking at cross purposes. While you may have been talking philosophy, I've been talking politics. That is, after all, the purpose of this site.

                            My own interest in Philosophy waned precipitously with exposure to the Christian apologists. As someone once said of the Metaphysician "He is a blind man in a dark room searching for a black hat that isn't there."  

                            That said I don't see how you reconcile this

                            I am not sure which of us is right so I am perfectly willing to give your view equal value. I will not begrudge you your perspective.
                            with this
                            Anyway, you misunderstand I am not unsure of my view its just that we are discussing a question of philosophy which as I see it has no correct answer (Given some semblance reasoning and consistency) at the meta level it can only be true or false for an individual.
                            Here's the rub. I've not been speaking at the meta level. My responses have all referenced externals. The validity of abstract theorems lays not in their internal consistency or "elegance" but in testing them against material realities.

                            As for points left unanswered, I can only suggest that you re-read my comments from the beginning, putting aside any assumptions you may have made. In particular my reply that you never responded to at all.

                            I'll leave you one other thought, one that you may or may not be familiar with.

                            "...philosophers have only
                            interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 06:56:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know why you choose to be so cryptic, (0+ / 0-)

                            about what I haven't addressed. You say we are discussing politics, where I don't see anything political mentioned. This started with you telling how you could HR me because I broke a rule and me saying yeah I know, I will do that on occasion but feel free to HR.Which then turned into this philosophical conversation.

                            The two different quotes you compare reconcile very easy where the first was in a  context where I was backing off not wanting to in any way make you feel I was expecting you to see things my way, the second is me clarifying for you why I phrased it that way, and this is me explaining the two which seems overly pedantic, but you asked.

                            Interesting about your final quote because I am having another private conversation right now exactly on how to change the world (Well America, but close enough). So the fact I am waxing philosophical with you has little bearing on what else I do, and changing the world is very high on my priority list.

                            I must admit you come off as someone with very rigid views and a passive tone of superiority. Where I am trying to explain myself as clear as possible you seem to be going out of your way to be abstract and in doing so may have confuse yourself into thinking there is politics anywhere in this thread chain.

                            So lets go back to the top...

                            If you were to go through all 1000+ of my posts would not find any habit of insulting people. So why did I imply I think hes crazy? Because I really think he is and was speaking the truth. Hes living Viva La Resistance where he is the hero of proletariat and I play a minor villain "petite bourgeoisie". I wasn't just suggesting hes crazy, read what he wrote its not that hard to see his vision is cloudy.

                            So when I break the rules its not to insult people its to speak truth even though the rules might say I shouldn't. The other place you will see me break the rules is in the partisan Democrat part of it, because the truth is at the Federal level the Dems are just as much in on it as the Repubs are and nothing will be solved by sticking our heads in the ground and pretending thats not true.

                            So if you would like to continue the conversation please stop being abstract and passive/aggressive and get to the point and say what you mean without some air that you are superior. Because as of now you have not given me confidence that you are fully clear and what you are trying to say or why.

                            When the Republicans are in power they get what they want and when the Democrats are in power they still get what they want. At what point do people finally see it is just theater? ~ Me

                            by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 07:51:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is not where we started (0+ / 0-)

                            We started here.

                            Why you'd say otherwise is a puzzle, since all you need do is parent up to beginning of the thread to see otherwise.

                            There's nothing cryptic in my suggestion that you reread my comments. It's obviously apt. Since you don't recall where our exchange began, you've clearly lost track.

                            If by rigid you mean an adherence to fact, then I suppose you would find me rigid. Perhaps you could do with a little of such "rigidity" yourself.

                            For one thing, you might not conflate your subjective opinion with "truth". Unless you are a trained mental health professional, your opinion of J.W.'s sanity is worth no more than anyone else and certainly can't be described as either true or "the truth".

                            Moreover, crazy isn't a synonym for cloudy vision. If you can't distinguish between the two, I'd say that's your own problem.

                            Frankly, your entire final paragraph strikes me nothing more than projection on your part. You don't seem to be able to see any point of view other than your own.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 09:47:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  This is entirely (0+ / 0-)
                you assumed I was someone wealthy
                a fiction.

                In no way did I say or suggest that you're someone wealthy.

                Is it "Gordon Gecko Democrat" week here at Dailykos?

                by JesseCW on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:51:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Um, for the sake of accuracy, I have to point out (0+ / 0-)

            that asking questions isn't an affirmation of anything and thus not a "construction" of any kind.

            OTOH, these are definitely affirmative assertions on your part:

            I like how they equate the victory to united... (2+ / 0-)

            workers instead of the PR nightmare that really swayed them.

            If the public didn't make a stink we would have 250 more on the unemployment rolls. Workers have no value anymore with 2-3 in need of work for every job, but customers are still heeded.

            Further, your assertion that "Solidarity is labor going out of its way to support labor" is an affirmative statement and one that doesn't comport with the actual definition of the term.

            Hence it is yourself who's deploying a construction. I've simply been inquiring as to what the content of that construction is.

            Nothing human is alien to me.

            by WB Reeves on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 01:24:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay sorry I lost this response in the shuffle, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WB Reeves

              and apologize, but the Jesse tangent did confuse me.

              We are not talk 'solidarity' in Webster's sense as a generic term, but in the context of 'united workers' as the article states. That is a particular kind of solidarity.

              The whole premise is that because workers united they got their job back. And my whole point is that there is little evidence for that, but the PR flap through the media turned so many people off from all walks of life put them in a spot where they could be boycotted by customers and thats why they relented.

              There were no protests or anything that could be called 'worked oriented' as the deciding factor. So I don't see whats so confusing about my point.

              Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back.

              by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:08:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for taking the time to check this out (0+ / 0-)

                I understand what you mean by getting sidetracked.

                I also understand the definition of solidarity that you are employing but it is your definition. I've never read or heard of it being used in the narrow fashion that you describe. Since I'm a trade unionists, I think that says something.

                Within the Labor movement, appeals to solidarity have never been circumscribed by the limits of workplace or union membership. Traditionally such appeals have been made to the general public across such limits for two reasons. First, because at no time have an absolute majority of US workers been unionized. Second, because it has been understood that Labor represents not only the interests of its membership but the interests of non-unionized workers as well.

                To be clear, in this context a worker is anyone employed on a wage basis. Hourly wage earners comprise 59% of the work force.

                It is this collective interest that is the basis for the principle of solidarity as Labor practices it. It differs profoundly from your own definition and you may not accept it but nevertheless, that is what trade unionist mean by the term. There is even a very old slogan within the movement which expresses the principal: "An injury to one is an injury to all."

                So we have indeed been talking at cross purposes, since we each have very different things when referring to the principle of solidarity. I hope this clarifies matters even if it doesn't lead us to agreement.

                I would add that if confusion on this score has led to our exchange becoming overly adversarial I very much regret it.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:13:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Err, that should read: "since we (0+ / 0-)

                  each mean very different things" rather than "since we each have..."

                  My bad.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:19:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well where I had an issue with 'solidarity'... (0+ / 0-)

                  is if used in the way presented then if everyone eating at a McDonalds happened to have a job that is solidarity. Thats just seems silly to me, but if you in a trade union of never it used as I am, then I have to accept its a creation of my own perception.

                  See though I own my own business, labor is a major issue even from a pure business sense (though it is from a moral sense too), but in reverse from large businesses. I am shop so though I have no employees at this stage i will never have more than a handful and having to pay a little more has little bearing on bottom line if I need the help. But, my customers who spend money are obviously strapped and spending less. So our economy is in the tank and people need more money and I'm in L.A. a city with a lot of money flowing compared to most places.

                  So when you say hourly labor is 59% of the workforce thats probably a rough estimate of the percent of my customers. Small business and labor tied together more than most people realize and not in the way that if you raise wages we go out of business, but if you raise wages we get more business.

                  Thats what I don't get about the large companies, they are trying to grind labor down to the point they won't have the money to buy the products and services the company sells. Its not sustainable.

                  Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

                  by fToRrEeEsSt on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:52:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well eating at McDonalds wouldn't be an act of (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fToRrEeEsSt

                    solidarity, since the motivation isn't to support the workers but to feed oneself. However, if one refrained from eating there, say to show support for the protest by fast workers calling for a living wage, that would be.

                    To give another example; there are two major grocery store chains in my city. One is unionized and the other is not. Consequently, I buy my groceries at the unionized store specifically because it is unionized. That is an act of solidarity on my part. Interestingly, the prices are also lower at the unionized chain so it's a win-win from my perspective.

                    Your point about the interdependence of small businesses and the general economic health of working people is well taken. The disconnect between your awareness of this and the apparent ignorance of large corporations underlines a real division of interest between small business and big business.

                    Small independent businesses are rooted in and are dependent on local communities. The same isn't true of large national and international corporations.

                    Consider the example of Wallmart. Wallmart became notorious during the heyday of it's success for devastating local businesses in smaller communities. This had a negative economic impact on such communities but it didn't matter to Wallmart's bottom line because, in the meanwhile, it enabled their capture of the entire market that remained. It didn't matter to them if the over all economic pie in a community shrank as long as their share of that pie increased.

                    Of course the viability of that business model is limited since, at some point, it falls prey to diminishing returns. Sooner or later the contraction of the local economy will stall the expansion/profitability of such a business but until that point is reached, there is no mechanism that would drive Wallmart to change its model. By that time, of course, the damage is done.

                    So yes, there can be and, IMO, often is a common interest between small business and wage earners in opposition to the interests of Corporate big business.

                     

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:56:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site