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.
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.
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.
Workplace occupations are instances of trespassing. I have no problem removing trespassers by force if necessary.
Substantiate.
It depends on what you mean by “strikebreakers” and “unionbusters”. I have no problem with employers hiring “scabs”.
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.
Reality is not obligated to satisfy one’s expectations.
So what? Oh well. (But really, they had more choice than you think.)
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Unnecessary sarcasm aside, that begs the question - did the employers actually injure their employees? What standard of “injure” are you using?
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.
Right, so why do you think the worker’s interests trump those of his employer?
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.
Then I stand opposed to them. No one is forcing them to work there.
Because I am one.
You’re right, it’s hyperbole.
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.
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?
Assuming you’re being serious here (which may be a risky assumption to make, I’ll admit), why did you engage in hyperbole?
What the “best” choice is is a matter of opinion.
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.