|
Top-level
 @waitworry @HeavenlyPossum And of course self-organisation isn't the same as self-determination. The workers aren't going to be able to say "OK we've decided insulin costs $1 now" (I don't know what Bayer make; if not insulin, pick something else with wide desperate need that they're price-gouging). 6 comments
 @waitworry @Professor_Stevens @petealexharris That assumes all those managers were actually performing useful work like records keeping, rather than the workers themselves. @HeavenlyPossum @waitworry @petealexharris If the workers were already doing it, they were already doing two jobs on one salary. Bayer owes them back pay. @Professor_Stevens @petealexharris @waitworry Bayer owes them everything, including the entirety of the firm they—the workers—built @HeavenlyPossum @petealexharris @waitworry Well, I predict they won't be getting that. My immediate concern is whether or not those workers are going to be given additional responsibilities and, if they are, whether or not they are going to get all of the following: 1. Increased pay for the extra work. This assumes that managers perform work that workers would need to take on, as opposed to performing guard labor for capitalists that can be readily jettisoned. Of course workers will not gain more economic power (or wages from this), no illusions there. But it is a massive admission that the primary roles of managers are to guard labor and to justify capitalist ownership. |
Gregory's Server
@petealexharris @waitworry @HeavenlyPossum
Same reaction. Kinda like this:
Bayer: We don't need all those managers. You guys can manage yourselves.
Workers: Yay! Stupid bosses. Who needs 'em?
Bayer: Okay, all the ledgers, government papers, and that stuff is on the third floor, which is empty now, so-
Workers: Wait, we have to do all that? Do we get OT or anything?
Bayer: OT? No, bosses are exempt. You're the bosses now. You just get the work, not the pay. We get that. Now back to work.