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

[Brussel Morton K.]

Comment below.

On Dec 10, 2008, at 3:05 AM, John W. wrote:

>
> 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

Amen to all that!, and I'd add to the list "food, energy and  
essential services" health insurance, the railroads. The profit  
motive (capitalism) in "essential institutions or industries" is not  
one which can be trusted to lead to the best and most efficient  
services for all the people, and which will lead to a sustainable  
society.    --mkb


>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081210/fca4c65b/attachment.htm