Collective Unthinkingness and the Loss of Workers' Rights

I normally write these posts off-line, and then post them. That potentially gives a more polished product, but is a disincentive to posting, so I'm going to, from time to time, go back to writing directly into the post.

My apologies in advance :)

What I want to cover in this post is a confluence of collective action and decision making, and the attacks and flaws that have led to the loss of workers' rights.

First off: collective decision making and action.

Some people associate that purely with various -isms (and those people usually - incorrectly - conflate communism, Marxism, Leninism and socialism [I came across another rubbish presentation on this from the USA just yesterday, actually]), or with unions, and fail to recognise that our representative democracy is also a form of collective decision making and action. In the latter case, the "collective" is our elected representatives.

Broadly speaking (and I'm doubtlessly stretching the "official" definition here), the actions of a class of society may be a form of collective action.

At this point, with some justification, I would imagine many Readers are thinking of violent social revolutions like the (second) Russian Revolution, but the US Civil Rights movement, environmental activism, movements to abolish slavery and achieve women's suffrage and other rights are examples of beneficial collective action.

Unfortunately, there are also examples of collective action that is not beneficial.

Examples of this include the growth of xenophobia, manifesting as anti-refugee measures in my (and other) nation(s), and the growth of too often environmentally and/or socially damaging materialism / consumerism. The latter is aided by people failing to think critically and clearly about their lives and values (I strongly recommend Brendan Myers’ “Clear and Present Thinking” as an aid in doing that), and the former is an accedance to (or buy in, if you prefer) and manifestation of fear.

Both of those are problems. One is a a failure to think, and the other is a surrender to and feeding of the worst aspects of our nature. The latter is particularly concerning, given the advances we have made in so many ways over the last few centuries (and, to some extent, centuries) - advances such as better thinking, abolition of child labour and slavery, acceptance and implementation of rights, the good use of technology that has improved people's qualities of life (starting from the Gutenberg Press, and not forgetting - as men often do - things like the [clothes] washing machine), medical and other advances, and, perhaps above all else, the decline of violence that Steven Pinker wrote about in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" (Amazon).

Both of these have, in my view, combined to erode workers' rights.

Now, a recently published study found a correlation between declining strike rates and declining rate of increase in pay. This is a complex matter, but the aspect here that I want to focus on is that going on strike is a scary thing. So ... as our society - unthinkingly, in my view - increases its addiction to fear, strikes decrease, and wages stagnate.

I am of the view that unions became arrogant and problematic - especially around acting against change to implement rights (e.g., I know of one union that is still grossly sexist, and have profound suspicions about the homophobia/transphobia of another), and that stupidity made them vulnerable, but changing work practices have become widely implemented in recent years - things like the casualisation of the workforce, and the expectation of being always on call - which, in my experience, workers have actually used to compete against other workers so they can get jobs. These effects have been exacerbated by underemployment and unemployment, particularly amongst the young.

What this boils down to is: out of fear of having to face the increasingly abusive nightmare of going on the grossly inadequate dole, workers have been caving in to employers' demands, demands based on the employers' laziness ("convenience", if you want a softer word) and quest for profit at almost any expense.

So here's a question: what if, instead of competing against other workers and caving in to the fear caused by deliberate intimidation, ALL job applicants had quietly said "No, that is not a reasonable expectation. I'll be a hard worker for you, but I am not going to sacrifice my wellbeing, my family's wellbeing, or our quality of life and income by agreeing to that."

If that had happened, employers would have had to back off on the changes that have damaged society so greatly over the last couple of decades. (Consumers also have some blame for this as well, but that is a topic for another time.) That would have been an example of constructive collective action.

What would have been required to do that? In my view, thinking about the broader implications of actions (the personal is political, as the old saying goes), and courage.

Some of that is a failure of our education system. In my experience, that does not produce enough young adults who are capable of thinking about the broader meaning of events and actions: it does, after pressure from business, produce people who are more like the mindless sheeple that business can manipulate into being complicit, compliant cogs.

Is there anything that can be done?

Yes!

First off, write to your elected representatives, and complain about things like stagnant wages and increasing pressure of life.

Next, consider joining a union, if you have one, and it is a progressive one. (Changes to the union movement are a topic for another post.)

Finally, if you are struggling to survive financially (and, in fact, even if you aren't), CUT BACK YOUR SPENDING - STOP buying stuff, as much as possible (and I am VERY aware that poorer people have already had to do so for a very long time, and many are in fact forced to use things like pay day lenders to get from pay to pay). Then complain about having to do so to your elected representatives, and IGNORE any replies that urge you to keep spending.

The cut back in spending will be harmful to the economy - there is no doubt about it, but that harm will also manifest in the hip pocket of employers, and pressure them to accept the warnings they are getting from Reserve Banks and other sources that their cutting back workers' conditions is also cutting back the cash that their buyers (i.e., workers) have to spend.

(Perhaps we could use a slogan like "Pay Me and I'll Spend" ... or not :) )

There are other responses which can be made to the two problems I've written about here: this is just mine, suggested in good measure out of frustration.

My Submission to Australia's Religious Freedoms Enquiry

(This has also been posted at my main blog; naturally, now that its done I would like to polish bits of it -and I would change the status from confidential to public.)

Enquiry homepage: https://pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review

Submissions: https://pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/religious-freedom-review/submission

Dear Members of the Expert Panel,

In my opinion, this enquiry risks its credibility unless it publicly acknowledges the following:

(1) the freedom of those religions which SUPPORTED Equal (aka "same sex") Marriage were restricted before the recent legislation adopted in response to the postal survey;

(2) conservative neochristian (I cannot, in all conscience, refer to them as Christian) religions do NOT speak for (all) Christians;

(3) members of minority (e.g., non-Abrahamic) religions are valid members of this society, and their religious freedoms deserve equal weight in these deliberations. The form of some of those religions may not match conventional expectations of religion (e.g., non-hierarchical, use of home altars, etc), but that does not reduce their worthiness of EQUAL consideration;

I have one further point that I wish to make.

(4) NO religion, mainstream or otherwise, has the right to enforce their views on the majority  which covers neochristian homophobia/transphobia, anti-abortion views, pro-reincarnation views, or pro-environment views (e.g., some forms of Paganism). The US President Franklin D Roosevelt included, as one of his Four Freedoms, Freedom of Worship: the freedom to worship in a particular way does not extend to forcing others to worship the same way: neochristians in particular must accept that. I find their arrogance and resumption nearly as offensive as those zealots of religions who kill in order to convert people. As Tom Fletcher, former UK Ambassador to Lebanon, wrote: “The real dividing line is not between Christianity and Islam, Sunni and Shia, East and West. It is between people who believe in coexistence, and those who don’t.”

Yours faithfully