http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=1391
Scroll down to #17, and click on "Capital and labor". Then hit the "VoD" button.
Start at 5:00. 25 minutes long, but not for the squeamish. Inspiring stuff.
For those interested, here's a link to the sequel: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105643/
I thought it was great. What did you find uncomfortable about it?
The video is only 3 minutes long... is that the point?
Woops, it's not linking correctly. Scroll down to number 17.
So, did anyone watch it?
Yeah, you'll have to troll harder.
Yellow journalism at its finest. Not that I'm a fan of Morgan, but when they introduce him they do a complete character assassination when they talk about his imposing stature and twisted nose to a background of haunting music.
They then discusses his habits of lavish spending (which I see no problem with either - if he wants to give his money to other people, why stop him?)
"The Constitution wasn't a fact of life in the coal towns" - What? The Constitution is a moderator between the public and government, not between individuals in the public.
In the coal mines people worked in difficult conditions? Oh really? So instead they shouldn't have done it at all?
"They worked until they died of natural death, were injured or killed, or contracted black lung" - ummm, yeah. People work until they die. I get it.
People joined unions - alright. As long as they're peaceful, we're all for that. Terence Powderly, for example, was pretty cool.
Mitchell was a former miner who now wore a ring and a suit - sooo, not all depressing?
The strike was working - ok? Good for the free market.
Keep in mind a few things - we're looking at this backwards from our standard of living. Life was not all pink roses before this period - families worked dawn to dusk in the field with many of their children dying. The Industrial Revolution brought the greatest increase in standard of living in the history of man.
Even textbooks in passing admit that the IR was not a time dominated by big business but a time of a multitude of many smaller merchants.
Moreover, corporatism was rampant during the time. We don't really endorse many of the historical figures of the time. Morgan is especially hated here.
This video was a waste of time with an obvious bias even in the intonation of the guy. The bias might be justified had he dug deeper into the issues and showed that the free market was the culprit, but he didn't. Sadly, schoolchildren everywhere think that it is.
So it goes.
Ah, I should have linked to #14 too.
Considering how much of those coal sales went to profits, and how hard labor movements fought for shortened workdays and higher wages, that's part of the reason why they formed unions.
They don't always. Which is why there are other methods unions adopt, like workplace occupations.
Keep in mind a few things - we're looking at this backwards from our standard of living. Life was not all pink roses before this period - families worked dawn to dusk in the field with many of their children dying.
The eight hour day, and labor regulations to protect unions and worker safety, played a big part in ending that.
Are you for employers hiring strikebreakers and unionbusters, also?
He wasn't giving his opinion or even discrediting the market. He was putting forth facts about a terrible situation. If what you want to take away from that is employers doing what they can to help workers, then alright.
mustang19:Considering how much of those coal sales went to profits, and how hard labor movements fought for shortened workdays and higher wages, that's part of the reason why they formed unions.
How much of the coal sales go to "profits" (i.e. things other than higher wages for coal miners) is up to those who own and sell the coal after it's mined.
mustang19:[Strikes] don't always [work]. Which is why there are other methods unions adopt, like workplace occupations.
Workplace occupations are instances of trespassing. I have no problem removing trespassers by force if necessary.
mustang19:The eight hour day, and labor regulations to protect unions and worker safety, played a big part in ending that.
Substantiate.
mustang19:Are you for employers hiring strikebreakers and unionbusters, also?
It depends on what you mean by "strikebreakers" and "unionbusters". I have no problem with employers hiring "scabs".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Which is why it sucks to be a worker.
And without any substantial way to take profits from their employers or gain control of the workplace, workers had little choice but to keep working in those conditions.
Employment liability, for one thing, as well as worker's comp were major deterrents for employer negligence.
The sharp rise in accident costs that resulted from compensation laws and tighter employers' liability initiated the modern concern with work safety and initiated the long-term decline in work accidents and injuries. Large firms in railroading, mining, manufacturing and elsewhere suddenly became interested in safety. Companies began to guard machines and power sources while machinery makers developed safer designs. Managers began to look for hidden dangers at work, and to require that workers wear hard hats and safety glasses. They also set up safety departments run by engineers and safety committees that included both workers and managers. In 1913 companies founded the National Safety Council to pool information. Government agencies such as the Bureau of Mines and National Bureau of Standards provided scientific support while universities also researched safety problems for firms and industries14
mustang19:Which is why it sucks to be a worker.
Reality is not obligated to satisfy one's expectations.
mustang19:And without any substantial way to take profits from their employers or gain control of the workplace, workers had little choice but to keep working in those conditions.
So what? Oh well. (But really, they had more choice than you think.)
mustang19:Employment liability, for one thing, as well as worker's comp were major deterrents for employer negligence.
First off, that has nothing to do with the eight-hour day. So you haven't substantiated that part yet.
Second, I'll point out this:
Where employers could show that the worker had assumed the risk, or had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, or had himself been partly at fault, courts would usually deny liability.
If it could be shown that a worker had assumed the risk, why should there be any liability against his employer?
If it could be shown that a worker had been injured by the actions of a fellow employee, then that fellow employee should be liable.
If it could be shown that a worker had himself been partly at fault, then the employer should be liable only for the other part.
Because otherwise, the employer isn't going to much care about safety. He bears very little of the loss of getting employees killed or maimed if he can just hire new ones.
The point of the eight hour day was to shorten the hours to a length that workers overwhelmingly wanted. Before then people spent ten to sixteen hours a day in awful conditions because that was the only work offered.
mustang19:Because otherwise, the employer isn't going to much care about safety. He bears very little of the loss of getting employees killed or maimed if he can just hire new ones.
Well the question is whether the employee could be said to have reasonably assumed the risk. If not, then the employer bears liability for the employee's injuries. Otherwise, the employer does not. What's unfair about this, exactly?
mustang19:The point of the eight hour day was to shorten the hours to a length that workers overwhelmingly wanted. Before then people spent ten to sixteen hours a day in awful conditions because that was the only work offered.
Even accepting this arguendo, so what? If an employer doesn't want to offer shorter ours, that's up to him. No one's entitled to work only a certain number of hours without prior agreement.
Why didn't you respond to the rest of my post?
Because you don't seem to consider worker's interests to be more important than employers, and we've gotten as far as we can there.
Episode #14, on the meat packing plants, is much more "inspiring".
It's sure unfair to force employers to pay for unsafe working conditions. I agree, but I think they should be forced to provide a safe workplace anyway.
They aren't, but it's in worker's interests to fight for the best deal that they can.
mustang19:Because you don't seem to consider worker's interests to be more important than employers, and we've gotten as far as we can there.
Of course I don't. Why would I? Why should I?
If you think I consider the employer's interests to be more important, you're wrong. I consider the worker's and the employer's interests to be equal - that is, neither's interests trump the other's. But that doesn't mean they own the same things and so forth.
mustang19:It's sure unfair to force employers to pay for injuring their employees. I agree, and I think they should be forced to provide a safe workplace anyway.
Unnecessary sarcasm aside, that begs the question - did the employers actually injure their employees? What standard of "injure" are you using?
mustang19:They aren't, but it's in worker's interests to fight for the best deal that they can.
Sure, but I don't think that justifies violating the employer's rights, including his property rights.
Very well.
They didn't injure them, you're right. They required them to work for long hours in the conditions shown in the videos if they wanted pay.
I'm aware that's your opinion. People doing the best to feed their families and not work twelve hours a day in a freezing meat plant very much want to violate those property rights.
mustang19:Very well.
Right, so why do you think the worker's interests trump those of his employer?
mustang19:They didn't injure them, you're right. They required them to work for long hours in the conditions shown in the videos if they wanted pay.
I suspect this is more sarcasm. Do you consider requiring someone to work long hours in certain conditions if he wants pay to constitute injuring him?
Aside from that, want of pay doesn't obligate a person to work for any particular employer. The whole "I have no choice" canard is just that - a canard. There's always a choice of whether to work for a particular employer or not. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to that choice, one way or the other, but the choice still exists.
mustang19:I'm aware that's your opinion. People doing the best to feed their families and not work twelve hours a day in a freezing meat plant very much want to violate those property rights.
Then I stand opposed to them. No one is forcing them to work there.
Because I am one.
You're right, it's hyperbole.
That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to that choice, one way or the other, but the choice still exists.
Yes, and the best choice for the workers is not necessarily to follow the law.
Depending on whether you worked in those packing plants, that may or may not have been in your interest.
mustang19:Because I am one.
I'm one too. Now what? Do you think I'm necessarily going against my interests? If so, why? On what grounds do you make that determination?
mustang19:You're right, it's hyperbole.
Assuming you're being serious here (which may be a risky assumption to make, I'll admit), why did you engage in hyperbole?
mustang19:Yes, and the best choice for the workers is not necessarily to follow the law.
What the "best" choice is is a matter of opinion.
mustang19:Depending on whether you worked in those packing plants, that may or may not have been in your interest.
What may or not have been in my interest? I don't see how this addresses what I said.
I have no idea what your particular interests are, and I'm not going to make claims about them. If you want to live in a world without worker's comp and employer liability, too bad.
Don't remember.
Yes.
Labor protections. Apparently you don't want employers to pay when you get injured due to workplace safety problems.
mustang19:I have no idea what your particular interests are, and I'm not going to make claims about them. If you want to live in a world without worker's comp and employer liability, too bad.
So things can never change in that way from here on out, huh? It's nice to know we have a clairvoyant among us.
mustang19:Don't remember.
Pardon my French, but I think that's bullshit. Try again.
mustang19:[I agree that what the "best" choice is is a matter of opinion.]
Thank you. So you understand that it's illogical to make any claim about there being any choice that is "best" in an objective sense, and that, if you make any such claim anyway, you're therefore being dishonest.
mustang19:Labor protections [may or may not have been in your interest]. Apparently you don't want employers to pay when you get injured due to workplace safety problems.
This again begs the question that you're trying to avoid - what do you think constitutes employers injuring employees? I will continue to bring up this question every single time you try to avoid it.
Move to Somalia or Hong Kong and you'll get your wish.
Nope.
I used that word incorrectly. Employers shoving ramrods up one's ass would constitute injury. But if they're not forced to pay for unsafe workplaces, they're probably going to care as much about safety.
mustang19:Move to Somalia or Hong Kong and you'll get your wish.
You really don't know what I wish. For you to claim otherwise only compounds your arrogance (earlier established by your implicit claim of clairvoyancy).
mustang19:[I refuse to try answering your question again.]
What are you afraid of?
mustang19:I used that word incorrectly. Employers shoving ramrods up one's ass would constitute injury. But if they're not forced to pay for unsafe workplaces, they're probably going to care as much about safety.
I accept your concession. The question now is, what do you think constitutes an "unsafe workplace"?
Let's suppose there's a workplace that carries a 33% of losing a limb within one year. A worker is informed of this risk before agreeing to work there. Within a year, he ends up losing a limb while working there. Although the worker understood the risk and agreed to take it on, would you say that his employer is nevertheless liable for his injury? Why or why not?
That's correct. I really don't.
Getting into another Autolykos debate.
Yes. Why? Because establishing employer liability has a broad effect on deterring unsafe work practices, and after these laws were introduced injuries fell a great deal. You may consider this unimportant. But I'll trade reducing a 33% risk of losing an arm for a fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal costs any day. As for what constitutes an injury, I would say that, at a minimum, the employer should cover any medical costs incurred by permanent injury at the workplace.
mustang19:That's correct. I really don't [know what you wish].
Thank you. So you retract your earlier statement, namely "Move to Somalia or Hong Kong and you'll get your wish."
mustang19:[I'm afraid of g]etting into another Autolykos debate.
And why is that? It seems you've already gotten into another one, though.
mustang19:Yes [the employer is liable for the worker's injury]. Why? Because establishing employer liability has a broad effect on deterring unsafe work practices, and after these laws were introduced injuries fell a great deal. You may consider this unimportant. But I'll trade reducing a 33% risk of losing an arm for a fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal costs any day. As for what constitutes an injury, I would say that, at a minimum, the employer should cover any medical costs incurred by permanent injury at the workplace.
You're ignoring my other question. Let me ask you again: what do you think constitutes an "unsafe workplace"?
Yes again. Very important victory for you.
Because we so often get involved in arguments like, "are morals objective?" or "does worker safety matter much?"
Any one where workers are getting hurt. It's a matter of degree. Worker's comp doesn't bother with pedantics. It taxes employers for each injury that happens on their watch.
mustang19:Because we so often get involved in arguments like, "are morals objective?" or "does worker safety matter much?"
I consider those issues to be fundamental and therefore of vital importance. If you disagree, oh well. Your disagreement is certainly not going to change my opinion.
mustang19:Any one where workers are getting hurt. It's a matter of degree. Worker's comp doesn't bother with pedantics. It taxes employers for each injury that happens on their watch.
By that standard, if I spill some coffee on myself while at work, it's my employer's fault. In fact, even if I were to intentionally injure myself at work - for example, cutting my finger on purpose - your standard would hold my employer liable for it. In other words, your standard takes away any notion of distinct responsibility for workplace events. It simply considers where the event occurred.
In theory, yes. But how many people are going to give themselves severe burns (and paper cuts which don't incur medical cost) in order to gain worker's comp, realistically?
That's irrelevant to your standard. By your standard, any workplace where someone gets hurt is an unsafe workplace. Hence the government would be within its rights to compel the employer who operates the unsafe workplace to pay compensation for the person who got hurt there.
Yes. I agree there might be some leeway if employees are just being fradulent, but for the most part I don't see many people pouring coffee on themselves for worker's comp, although it might occasionally happen.
But by your standard, people pouring coffee on themselves at their workplaces isn't fraudulent at all with respect to worker's compensation. All that matters to your standard is that a worker was injured at his workplace. No other circumstances mean anything.
No other circumstances mean anything.
Thanks for telling me what my opinion is. However, if the judge thinks that the guy is coming to work and chopping off his fingers every day for the sole purpose of obtaining worker's comp, I'm inclined to see it as an extenuating circumstance.
mustang19:Thanks for telling me what my opinion is.
Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. In other words, I've been pointing out the logical consequences of your opinion. If you don't like what they are, the only way to rectify that is to change your opinion. But I haven't seen you do that yet.
mustang19:However, if the judge thinks that the guy is coming to work and chopping off his fingers every day for the sole purpose of obtaining worker's comp, I'm inclined to see it as an extenuating circumstance.
Why? You said that an unsafe workplace is any workplace where someone gets hurt, period, full stop, end of story. You haven't added any sort of qualifications to that standard. So it's disingenuous of you to try to sneak in qualifications through the back door, as it were.
Hey, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. In other words, I've been pointing out the logical consequences of your opinion.
Let me make my opinion clear. I'm for worker comp without fraud. If this is different from my previous statements, it's only because you take them literally.
Why? You said that an unsafe workplace is any workplace where someone gets hurt, period, full stop, end of story. You haven't added any sort of qualifications to that standard.
Too bad. I just did.
mustang19:Let me make my opinion clear. I'm for worker comp without fraud. If this is different from my previous statements, it's only because you take them literally.
... Why wouldn't I take them literally?
Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I think now the question raised is, what do you think constitutes "fraud"?
mustang19:Too bad. I just did.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with you changing your position, as long as you do it explicitly.
Whatever the judge things indicates the worker injuring himself for the sole purpose of getting comp.
So instead of actually answering my question, you make a confession of faith? Or is this your way of saying "I know it when I see it", like the infamous "definition" of "obscenity" declared by one Supreme Court justice?
The second one. Any more questions?
This isn't a question, but "I know it when I see it" doesn't constitute a valid definition for any word. So I consider that to be a big, gaping hole in your position.
I will.
Well, I'm still glad I have worker's comp.