If a local of one union would strike, for example, locals of other unions would join them on that picket line or even participate in their own work action.
During the Russian Revolution, dock workers in Western Europe went on strike in solidarity with Russian workers and to discourage their respective states from intervening in the revolution.
That doesn’t happen anymore.
If a union local goes on strike, that’s it. No support from other locals. No support from non-unionized workers.
If young workers are paid a lower wage than older workers or workers who serve alcohol have lower wages, other workers are silent. Alberta recently debated the implementation of a lower wage for young workers, and there was nothing. Unions were silent. No massive protests in the streets by labour. Nothing.
And it’s not just a local issue. Workers everywhere are affected by labour struggles.
When populist politicians promise nationalist approaches to job creation, they affect jobs globally and domestically.
The economic systems of each country are interconnected. A car built in Canada can be made with parts from all over the world, and those parts can be made from raw materials from even other parts of the world.
If a politician slaps tariffs on Chinese steel, for example, it’s not just affecting the retail price at the local Steel R Us big box store. That steel is integrated into so many so-called “American-made” products, that vast numbers of products are affected. Products that are built by local labour.
Actually, Chinese steel is a good example of the problem. Americans see it as a problem because it’s cheaper, which undercuts the price of American made steel. And it’s cheaper because labour is China is cheaper.
But that’s kind of the point. If you’re worried about Chinese steel undercutting American steel, don’t get mad at Chinese workers, advocate for them. If you’re worried about American companies moving textile jobs to Bangladesh, don’t get mad at Bangladeshi workers, advocate for them. If you’re worried about American call centre jobs moving to the Philippines, don’t get mad at Filipino workers, advocate for them. If you’re worried about American autoworker jobs moving to Mexico, don’t get mad at Mexican workers, advocate for them.
If American (or Canadian) companies are shipping your jobs overseas, it’s because they can pay overseas workers less than they have to pay you. But if they had to pay them as much as they pay you, there’d be no incentive to ship your jobs elsewhere.
Workers aren’t the problem; capitalism is. Capitalism exploits workers. It pays workers the least amount possible and expends them when they become too expensive.
And if you think consumer prices will increase, you might be right. But guess who’s to blame for that? If you guessed “capitalism”, you’re right.
Consumer prices are kept low so they can keep wages low. If the cost of living doesn’t increase, workers won’t demand higher wages. But even if retail prices are kept low, how are corporations still posting profits? There’s only one way to create profit if your revenue doesn’t increase: lowering expenses. And cutting costs virtually always includes labour costs.
But if companies are making profit, then they’re not paying workers enough. Profits are what’s left over after paying for all your expenses, including labour. Nike, for example, posted nearly $2 billion in profit in 2018. That’s enough to pay every employee another $23,000 ever year, more if you don’t include executive or management positions.
Workers aren’t the problem. Capitalism is.
And it’s about time workers everywhere banded together. Because an injury to one is an injury to all.
But—you may ask—couldn’t we say the same thing about men? If all men walked off the job, wouldn’t the same thing happen?
Absolutely. However, workforce labour is only a portion of the female labour.
Women do most of the work at home. In fact, in Canada, they perform 50% more of the unpaid household work than men do. They are more likely to cook the meals, do the laundry, do the dishes, clean the house, and so on.
And full bellies, clean clothes, and a healthy home are critical for a productive workforce. Without the labour of mothers, wives, girlfriends—and even daughters and sisters—the male members of the workforce would be less productive.
And on top of that, some of those women performing the unpaid household labour also participate in the workforce. So they are contributing to the economy directly through their own paid labour and indirectly through their unpaid labour that helps keep the males productive
And let’s not forget the primarily women-led industries that workers rely on to be productive, such as childcare (daycare, nannies, babysitting, etc), teaching (84% of elementary school teachers in Canada are women), errand running (concierge, housecleaning, laundry, etc), and so on.
The economy thrives on the labour of women: both in the workforce and in the home. It‘s time we start recognizing that.
And maybe in the process, the men can do more to ease that burden.
Let us assume that a large family could be classified as a family with five or more kids. These children, if all births are not multiples, can be born in a period not less than five 40 week intervals plus four 4 week periods to become impregnated again. This works out to 216 weeks or 4 years, 2 months. That’s a pretty tight schedule to keep, but possible I guess if one were motivated enough. The time from the birth of the first child until the exit from the home of the last child would be a period not less than approximately 22 and one half years (assuming a good synchronization with a school schedule or a home schooled family).
The world we live in now changes at an ever-increasing rate. There is evidence of exponential rates of change in industries and technologies used by employees and researchers the world over. The education you receive today may, depending on the field of study, not be useful or meaningful in 5 years time. Especially if you plan to work in a technical industry or in a research position. How much out of touch would you be if you were to cease your studies for 5 years? 10 years? Just imagine how hard it would be to initiate a job search in your field after leaving it for more than 20 years.
The description of a women’s role in the ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’ is that “women are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” while men “are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.” This is familiar territory for many families with Dad being the breadwinner and Mom working in the home with the children. Most devout LDS women who work in the home go so far as to be available through the day for their children even when they are in secondary school or choose to home school their children themselves. Both of these behaviours offer little to no availability (or motivation) for additional work outside the home.
Given that raising a large family can span over two decades and that education now has an ever-decreasing shelf life, does it make sense for a young LDS women to attend a post secondary institution at all?
Let us, for a moment, consider other reasons one might wish one’s LDS daughters to attend a college, trade school or university if their education is not of a primary concern.
One argument is that being out on one’s own is a character building experience. True enough but one does not necessarily need to pay tuition to live outside one’s parent’s home.
Perhaps the argument is that all their friends are going off to school and they don’t want to be left behind or miss out on the shared experiences of their peers. Arguments that ‘everyone else is doing’ lead invariably in my mind to an exercise in bridge-jumping and at their core hold very little weight in regard to the best activities for youth in life experience and development of coping skills. In fact, leaving the pack can often be the child’s first experience of making their own decisions and developing coping strategies of their own.
Another argument is that attendance at one of the private LDS post secondary institutions is the best way for a young LDS lady to meet and be courted by a returned missionary and in time evaluate to what extent he takes his career studies seriously; not to mention the safety of being surrounded by members of one’s own faith during that courtship. This does have some sense to it, but the question remains; would it not be more cost efficient and time saving for the young lady to simply live in Provo or Rexburg until they’ve met the man they feel is ‘the one’? Many a parent may want to keep their daughters busy while they are in search of a life partner and simply enroll them so they have something to do during the search. But is this really an efficient and effective way of facilitating such a search? And what happens when she is wed and wishes to immediately start a family? Does the education she’s started simply be thrown away? Would this not lead to issues with her self esteem and self worth?
Would it not be more fair and effective if LDS parents were to instruct their daughters who have expressed interest in leading life as an observant LDS Mother of a large family, to not bother with post secondary education altogether?
]]>“I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.” (1 Ne 8:24)
I find it interesting that Lehi would describe these persons as clinging to the rod rather than merely holding on to it. As I sat thinking about this, two other scriptures came to mind.
“Then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate” (2 Ne 31:18)
“Whoso cometh in at the gate and climbeth up by me shall never fall” (Moses 7:53)
So maybe holding the rod just doesn’t capture what’s required to climb the strait and narrow path. Maybe it’s just too difficult to merely hold on. Maybe those Lehi saw were clinging because the way is just too hard. And maybe they were confident that there was something much better at the end of the rod.
]]>My family was one of the families cleaning tonight. While I was vacuuming the chapel for 40 minutes, I was left wondering why people leave the chapel in such a mess? Each week at that. Ground in Triscuits, ground in Ritz crackers, squished raisins, ground in Cheerios, and on. Why can’t people leave the garbage at home or at least clean up after themselves? Why can’t they take they bulletins with them when they leave? Why can’t they put away the hymnals when they leave?
Are other churches (faiths) like this?
]]>[Assuming of course, there was actually a need for this much labour to be performed, but that’s not really the point of the question.]
]]>