You know what, let’s do it. These fuckers apparently need a reminder that the alternative to unions and the NLRB is sabotage, riots, bombings and murders.
You can’t violence your way into efficient human labor without repealing the 13th Amendment.
Let’s see if the SCOTUS says that the slavery clause only applies to individual people that congress specifically designates as free, a la the wholly made up rules on the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment.
I’d like to agree with you, but I’d like to note that the 13th amendment of the US constitution specifically states slavery is allowed as a punishment for a crime.
So all you need to do is manufacture laws which make something common criminal and put heavy sanctions on it.
Like say… draconian drug laws around cannabis, or making abortion carry the same sentences as murder. Criminalising trans healthcare. Three strike laws in which you can sentence someone to prison for life for stealing $14.
Thats how the US subsidises labour. Enslaved prisoners.
So you can violence your way into efficient human labour without repealing the 13th amendment. Perhaps there’s a point at which it won’t work anymore, but seems to have worked fine for the past 50-70 years or so
I’d make the argument that slavery provides a higher quantity of workers, but since it’s against the workers’ wills, it is not as efficient (units of work per unit of time).
Sooo, they want the crazy apes with opposable thumbs and the ability to persistence hunt any animal alive to band together and hunt them until they run over a cliff?
Because that sounds like a good plan at this point.
Poor babies. I've worked in a lot of places. I've never yet worked at, knew someone who worked at, or heard of a corporation that has a union that didn't "earn" the union by persistent and blatant worker abuse.
Back in Lincoln’s day, the Republicans really were about ‘trickle up’ economics. Henry Ford paid people enough to buy his cars. Now it’s “I can pay half the working class to kill the other half.”
Henry Ford did that as a business decision. He didn’t care about the workers.
He did it because people were quitting after working only a short time. Remember he didn’t invent the car, he invented the assembly line. Working hard wasn’t new. Working in a factory wasn’t new. But doing boring monotonous work was new.
I believe he also demanded that workers not drink during their time off, or other similar restrictions on private life. It was a well paying job, but it demanded a lot. He wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of his heart.
I wasn’t trying to present Ford as a hero of the working man. I was trying to show that Ford understood that workers are a resource, not a burden.
You’re right about him not wanting workers drinking. Two stories I’ve heard. The first is that he helped create Prohibition because he thought banning liquor would stop people from drinking. The other is that he helped start a lot of small banks. Workers were taking their paychecks to bars and getting them cashed there. When the bars closed, the workers needed a new place to get their money,
I can see the confusing jungle law like frontier justice is a term used for the lawlessness of the wilderness. If tiger is hungry and can overpower you, tiger eats you.
In this case, the labor force rises up like zombies and tears upper management apart, or feeds them into the machines, or beats them with big wrenches, if history tells. They may put it off by hiring strikebusters and police with dogs. The bloodier it starts, the bigger the fire.
Add comment