[Peace-discuss] socializing an industry -- good but also bad

[John W.]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Karen Medina <kmedina at illinois.edu> wrote:

Peace-discuss,
>
> I would like to discuss the US taking over an industry.
>
> Let us take the postal service as an example. The postal service has always
> been
> tied to the federal government. And has done well.
>
> But as an institution, it was extremely sexist and racist clear into the
> 1980s. I
> blame this on the fact that it was tied to the federal government. For a
> very long
> time, the postal service did not have to abide by OSHA's safety guidelines,
> again
> because it was a government institution. The postal service used to be one
> of
> the highest stress occupations -- again because it was run by the
> government
> and was managed top-down and so very close to the way the military was run
> that many ex-military people were employed by the postal service.
>
> I am not saying that I think the postal service should be privatized, I am
> just
> saying that when the government runs an industry, it tends to overlook
> human
> dignity issues and is slow to change -- and it makes us all guilty for the
> human
> rights abuses done by the institution.
>
> It is good sometimes to be able to point to a CEO and say that person is
> bad,
> but it is really hard for the public to turn and look at the way the public
> is
> running an industry and say "we are bad".
>
> -karen medina


I guess I'd like to take the opposite view.

While I have heard about the stress involved in working for the post office
(particularly at "the Plant"), I doubt that it's any worse than working for
some private-sector corporation, most of which are also managed in a
top-down style.

Historically, government institutions like the military and the post office
have been among the LEAST racist and sexist employers in America.  In the
black community of the 1940s and 1950s, having a job at the post office was
about the best job that one could hope for.  Teaching was also a viable and
desirable option in the black community.  The police and fire departments
proved more difficult to integrate.

An irony of history is that, because of the way the law has evolved,
public-sector unions have been for the past 30 years FAR stronger than
private-sector unions, providing public employees with far greater job
protections.  Of course, it also helps that government jobs can't be
exported overseas.

Again, due to the peculiar nature of our labor laws, the government is in a
position to mandate things like affirmative action, a living wage, etc. not
only in its own employment practices but in instances where it contracts
with private-sector vendors.  Legally, we have not seen fit to extend the
same level of government-mandated worker protections to private-sector
employers who do not do business with government.

There are pros and cons both ways, of course.   But on balance, I would MUCH
prefer to work for the government, and I think that basic industries having
to do with food, energy, and essential services should be nationalized for
purposes of national security and the public good.

John Wason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081210/d75f4ef6/attachment.htm