Publications
Partners
Labour Q&A with Terry Bell
In the ongoing labour debate Fin24 user Rudi de Klerk argues that the pain and suffering after strikes is a result of one reaping what he sowed. He was responding to Terry Bell's Inside Labour column, where Bell argues that the poor's disproportionate debt burden is leading to rising anger.
De Klerk writes: "I agree, our debt level of most workers are out of control. In my opinion unrealistic wage increases and other demands by the unions and their members (especially in an unprotected strike) will enhance more poverty and suffering by the workers concerned!
For example, platinum mine workers will never make up their losses as well as the suffering accompanied by it. It is called 'self inflicted injury', but even worse, in the long run all the parties concerned is going to lose more than they have bargained for, barring for the union leaders.
Shame, I sincerely hope all the workers have learned a good lesson because they paid a very expensive price for it. (Fact of life: you will always reap what you sow)."
Terry Bell responds:
Hi Rudi,
While we don't always reap what we sow, future generations of workers have reaped the benefits of the struggles of earlier generations, in terms not only of wages and conditions, but often much more. And high prices had often to be paid for those advances.
What, in any event, is unrealistic about demanding a living wage when, because of price increases beyond their control, workers find that their disposable incomes are shrinking?
At the same time, profits, dividends to shareholders and frequently obscenely large payments to directors continue to increase.
But I do agree with you that there are union leaders who, like many bosses, line their pockets and look after only themselves. However, unions are fortunate in that they are fundamentally democratic and members can — and often do — organise and depose such leaders or desert unions that they feel no longer serve their interests.
* Share your take or just drop Terry a labour question.
- Fin24
* Follow Terry on twitter @telbelsa.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
In the ongoing labour debate Fin24 user Rudi de Klerk argues that the pain and suffering after strikes is a result of one reaping what he sowed. He was responding to Terry Bell's Inside Labour column, where Bell argues that the poor's disproportionate debt burden is leading to rising anger.
De Klerk writes: "I agree, our debt level of most workers are out of control. In my opinion unrealistic wage increases and other demands by the unions and their members (especially in an unprotected strike) will enhance more poverty and suffering by the workers concerned!
For example, platinum mine workers will never make up their losses as well as the suffering accompanied by it. It is called 'self inflicted injury', but even worse, in the long run all the parties concerned is going to lose more than they have bargained for, barring for the union leaders.
Shame, I sincerely hope all the workers have learned a good lesson because they paid a very expensive price for it. (Fact of life: you will always reap what you sow)."
Terry Bell responds:
Hi Rudi,
While we don't always reap what we sow, future generations of workers have reaped the benefits of the struggles of earlier generations, in terms not only of wages and conditions, but often much more. And high prices had often to be paid for those advances.
What, in any event, is unrealistic about demanding a living wage when, because of price increases beyond their control, workers find that their disposable incomes are shrinking?
At the same time, profits, dividends to shareholders and frequently obscenely large payments to directors continue to increase.
But I do agree with you that there are union leaders who, like many bosses, line their pockets and look after only themselves. However, unions are fortunate in that they are fundamentally democratic and members can — and often do — organise and depose such leaders or desert unions that they feel no longer serve their interests.
* Share your take or just drop Terry a labour question.
- Fin24
* Follow Terry on twitter @telbelsa.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
