3 ms·

> They want to promote job stability above all else No, please no. The labour movement want(ed) good living conditions for the majority rather than for the few

by jahaja 9y ago

> They want to promote job stability above all else No, please no. The labour movement want(ed) good living conditions for the majority rather than for the few. And yes, to not be fired by the whim of the bosses daily feeling is part of that, but not "above all else". And ofc these kind of jobs is the enemy of the labour movement, because it's exactly the opposite of what's been fought for in the last ~150 years.

dalbasal 9y ago
I suppose we disagree, somewhat. In my view/experience labour movements have generally pursued job stability as a primary instrument (for worker rights), even if it was not formally a goal in itself. This may be somewhat at odds with solidarity, but every movement deals with some internal contradiction. There a multiple reasons for the focus on permanent employment. One is the labour union history of labour movements. Unions represent members and their interests, which are protecting their jobs, not jobs in general. Another reason is practical: it's almost impossible to unionize and hard to apply protections to a casual workforce. Labour movements (esp unions) are empowered by permanent workforces. Another reason (possibly the dominant one) is simple practical politics: people want a guarantee of permanence. I believe that casual employment types have a role, in many cases one that permanent employment struggles to fill. From the worker perspective, this has to do with the low commitment, low barriers to entry, and relative absence of gatekeepers. Historically, when labour movements have tried to regulate casual labour they have tried to turn it into permanent labour. In my view this is misguided. They should try to insert worker rights into the class while maintaining the casual noncommittal aspects of it. For a practical example, I recently talked to some squatter/anarchists. They're hardly a major group, but weird and marginal enough that they're good at illustrating a point. Many of them work in the Gig economy (bike delivery). No Gatekeepers is what makes it work for them.
- jahaja 9y ago
  I'm not sure why your definition of labour movement is so local rather than national/global? It seems like a strange premise to your whole reply. Causal employment doesn't have to mean worse worker rights. We don't seem to disagree that much, I'm just questioning that you think it's the top priority. I'm surprised by your bike delivery claim because I've recently seen exactly the opposite; the organizing of strikes in Berlin: https://deliverunion.fau.org/2017/06/27/riders-unite-protest-at-the-offices-of-deliveroo-and-foodora/ https://deliverunion.fau.org/2017/06/27/riders-unite-protest... (syndicalist/anarchist union too)
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    I'm not sure what the dynamic is in Germany, but here (Ireland), the subtext to such demands would almost certainly be upgrading these delivery people to permanent employee status. The way the law (much of it case law and labour court conventions) works currently is that arrangements similar to permanent employment are considered permanent employment, with all rights. If a company wants to keep it's "contractors'" status and avoid inadvertently picking up the responsibilities of a permanent employer, they need to avoid treating them like employees. Controlling hours, workflow and such (employee freedom) falls into that category. Providing sick pay, reimbursements, holiday pay and such also fall into that category. Again, I don't know for sure this is an issue right now in germany, but I suspect it is. Intentionally or not, agreeing to this request/demand would weaken deliveroo's case that these are not "employees." It would set up a general ruling that effectively considers the whole employment model (which is technically not employment) unlawful. What I'm suggesting is: (1) we find a new name/category for these employees, (2) remove the defacto laws that cause contractors to default to permanent employees when/if you treat them like employees (3) legislate new rights that are relevant to this category. These must be realistic about preserving the casualness of the arrangement.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      You do touch on a point here: this gig economy only exists because full time employment does not offer living wages in the majority of the places where it exists.

by jahaja 9y ago

dalbasal 9y ago

I suppose we disagree, somewhat. In my view/experience labour movements have generally pursued job stability as a primary instrument (for worker rights), even if it was not formally a goal in itself. This may be somewhat at odds with solidarity, but every movement deals with some internal contradiction. There a multiple reasons for the focus on permanent employment. One is the labour union history of labour movements. Unions represent members and their interests, which are protecting their jobs, not jobs in general. Another reason is practical: it's almost impossible to unionize and hard to apply protections to a casual workforce. Labour movements (esp unions) are empowered by permanent workforces. Another reason (possibly the dominant one) is simple practical politics: people want a guarantee of permanence. I believe that casual employment types have a role, in many cases one that permanent employment struggles to fill. From the worker perspective, this has to do with the low commitment, low barriers to entry, and relative absence of gatekeepers. Historically, when labour movements have tried to regulate casual labour they have tried to turn it into permanent labour. In my view this is misguided. They should try to insert worker rights into the class while maintaining the casual noncommittal aspects of it. For a practical example, I recently talked to some squatter/anarchists. They're hardly a major group, but weird and marginal enough that they're good at illustrating a point. Many of them work in the Gig economy (bike delivery). No Gatekeepers is what makes it work for them.

jahaja 9y ago
I'm not sure why your definition of labour movement is so local rather than national/global? It seems like a strange premise to your whole reply. Causal employment doesn't have to mean worse worker rights. We don't seem to disagree that much, I'm just questioning that you think it's the top priority. I'm surprised by your bike delivery claim because I've recently seen exactly the opposite; the organizing of strikes in Berlin: https://deliverunion.fau.org/2017/06/27/riders-unite-protest-at-the-offices-of-deliveroo-and-foodora/ https://deliverunion.fau.org/2017/06/27/riders-unite-protest... (syndicalist/anarchist union too)
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I'm not sure what the dynamic is in Germany, but here (Ireland), the subtext to such demands would almost certainly be upgrading these delivery people to permanent employee status. The way the law (much of it case law and labour court conventions) works currently is that arrangements similar to permanent employment are considered permanent employment, with all rights. If a company wants to keep it's "contractors'" status and avoid inadvertently picking up the responsibilities of a permanent employer, they need to avoid treating them like employees. Controlling hours, workflow and such (employee freedom) falls into that category. Providing sick pay, reimbursements, holiday pay and such also fall into that category. Again, I don't know for sure this is an issue right now in germany, but I suspect it is. Intentionally or not, agreeing to this request/demand would weaken deliveroo's case that these are not "employees." It would set up a general ruling that effectively considers the whole employment model (which is technically not employment) unlawful. What I'm suggesting is: (1) we find a new name/category for these employees, (2) remove the defacto laws that cause contractors to default to permanent employees when/if you treat them like employees (3) legislate new rights that are relevant to this category. These must be realistic about preserving the casualness of the arrangement.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    You do touch on a point here: this gig economy only exists because full time employment does not offer living wages in the majority of the places where it exists.