3 ms·

This conclusion shouldn't be shocking to anyone. The entire foundation of the employer-employee relationship is built upon exploitation of labor value. So when

This conclusion shouldn't be shocking to anyone. The entire foundation of the employer-employee relationship is built upon exploitation of labor value. So when an employee signals loyalty what he's truly signalling is that he's open to a higher level of exploitation.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
That is very US-centric, or perhaps Anglo-centric, view. it isn't necessarily the case and not my experience here in Norway. But companies here are subject to stricter controls and there is a cooperative relationship between employers, unions, employees, and the state. It does happen here too of course but I don't think it is the norm.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  It's the logical conclusion when workers' rights are continuously squashed, healthcare is tied to employment, and there is no social safety net. The worker is left with little bargaining power except in very specific and individual cases. I'd consider being more loyal to companies if it meant I'd be compensated properly for my work and time. But I've never gotten less than a 40% TC raise changing companies, plus other/better benefits.
- droptablemain 3y ago
  It's not an Anglo or US-centric view, it's the standard internationalist Marxist view of the perpetual class struggle within capitalism for centuries now. In your country, the balance-of-power is slightly shifted toward the working class (at least compared to the US, as well as most of the developing world). Unions, for example, serve as a buffer to prevent the worst of the exploitation, but the foundational exploitation of labor remains. Labor laws, minimum wage, also exist for this reason, but do not change the fundamental nature of the relationship. Their mere existence and lack of inverse mechanics (i.e. maximum wage, for example) should tell you all you need to know.
  - kwhitefoot 3y ago
    We don't have a minimum wage here.
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  Not US-centric or anglo-centric. This is also a common view in third world countries. I think Europe is the exception: most countries do not have this degree of social welfare.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

That is very US-centric, or perhaps Anglo-centric, view. it isn't necessarily the case and not my experience here in Norway. But companies here are subject to stricter controls and there is a cooperative relationship between employers, unions, employees, and the state. It does happen here too of course but I don't think it is the norm.

llbeansandrice 3y ago
It's the logical conclusion when workers' rights are continuously squashed, healthcare is tied to employment, and there is no social safety net. The worker is left with little bargaining power except in very specific and individual cases. I'd consider being more loyal to companies if it meant I'd be compensated properly for my work and time. But I've never gotten less than a 40% TC raise changing companies, plus other/better benefits.
droptablemain 3y ago
It's not an Anglo or US-centric view, it's the standard internationalist Marxist view of the perpetual class struggle within capitalism for centuries now. In your country, the balance-of-power is slightly shifted toward the working class (at least compared to the US, as well as most of the developing world). Unions, for example, serve as a buffer to prevent the worst of the exploitation, but the foundational exploitation of labor remains. Labor laws, minimum wage, also exist for this reason, but do not change the fundamental nature of the relationship. Their mere existence and lack of inverse mechanics (i.e. maximum wage, for example) should tell you all you need to know.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  We don't have a minimum wage here.
thiagoharry 3y ago
Not US-centric or anglo-centric. This is also a common view in third world countries. I think Europe is the exception: most countries do not have this degree of social welfare.