Labor Rights in Iraq Redux

[Ramo]

Sistani said he'd give the US another year for democracy to come till he'd advocate active opposition to the CPA's gov't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were still running after we took 'em over from Saddam.

Yeah, and the revenues coming into the Iraqi government's coffers has diminished greatly.

I didn't know you had fascist tendencies.

Getting close to Godwin's Law . If that's what you want to call it, go ahead. I wonder if you'd say Berzerker has fascist tendancies as well?

And Lenin as well? After all it's merely a different way of saying 'to make an omelet you have to break some eggs'.

The people are paralyzed by unemployement at the moment.

And a union would help by? So then they can strike and still not make any money, while causing a civil disturbance?

The primary goal should be employment.

And what do you do with state owned enterprises who aren't getting the same money because the change in government has resulted in less government revenue because of the disorder that came after it?

[Ramo]

Getting close to Godwin's Law . If that's what you want to call it, go ahead. I wonder if you'd say Berzerker has fascist tendancies as well?

I don't recall Berzerker every saying that he'd want to prohibit unions or striking.

And a union would help by?

Pressuring the gov't into not throwing away Iraqi jobs, not importing foreign workers, giving Iraqis reconstruction contracts, giving workers higher wages, not selling off all state-owned industries to foreign corporations, etc.

And what do you do with state owned enterprises who aren't getting the same money because the change in government has resulted in less government revenue because of the disorder that came after it?

If the business is so unprofitable, what difference does it make if its employees strike? Why can't the gov't just sell it to the highest bidder since it's not bringing in any revenue.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The people are paralyzed by unemployement at the moment.

And a union would help by? So then they can strike and still not make any money, while causing a civil disturbance?

This is no time to be a tight ass. We need people to be happy and we need them to circulate money. If they strike it's because you are ****ing up.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The primary goal should be employment.

And what do you do with state owned enterprises who aren't getting the same money because the change in government has resulted in less government revenue because of the disorder that came after it?

Screw govt revenue. This is no time to worry about that.

[DAVOUT]

The main purpose of unions is not to organize strikes, particularly when the unemployment rate is as hight as it is currently in Irak; they are many other lines of action. And an organized workforce is more efficient than a mob. The US should not forget that unions are a common feature of democracies.

In addition, if the workers are loosing the protection of the lifelong employment, it is clear that they need an alternative shield. The US have no intention to create sweatshops in Irak.

[chequita guevara]

Should it be any surprise that a government a hostile to labor s we have is supressing it abroad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Pressuring the gov't into not throwing away Iraqi jobs, not importing foreign workers, giving Iraqis reconstruction contracts, giving workers higher wages, not selling off all state-owned industries to foreign corporations, etc.

While generally causing a disturbance, which is not needed right now while dealing with terrorisms.

Why can't the gov't just sell it to the highest bidder since it's not bringing in any revenue.

Isn't this what they are doing and what you are arguing against?

Screw govt revenue. This is no time to worry about that.

When is? When they go bankrupt?

The US should not forget that unions are a common feature of democracies.

That's one of the main problems with this line of argument. There is no democracy yet. Let's wait until we get a working government in Iraq before we bestow union rights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
While generally causing a disturbance, which is not needed right now while dealing with terrorisms.

All that shooting into the sky after Saddam was caught-that was a bunch of disturbances. I don;t think the occupaiton forces took a swift hand in ending them though..

When is? When they go bankrupt?

How would allowing workers to unionize make the country go bankrupt? what you have failed utterly to argue Imran is that a law barring public sector unions is the sort of thing a democracy, which is in theory what we are trying to create in Iraq, should do.

That's one of the main problems with this line of argument. There is no democracy yet. Let's wait until we get a working government in Iraq before we bestow union rights.

Why? Won;t the first batch of workers have to sign contracts from the outset? What will be thr righst of these workers?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
For democracy, I'd like to see the head Ayatollah simply tell his followers to refuse to cooperate with the provisional government plan. If 80% of the country refuses to send delegates, there is no way it could possibly function.

Maybe they should do a Ghandi or an MLK.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[

The US should not forget that unions are a common feature of democracies.

That's one of the main problems with this line of argument. There is no democracy yet. Let's wait until we get a working government in Iraq before we bestow union rights.

It is easy to suspend instead of forbidding, then to start the discussion about the organization of the future unions. I understand that the US are not perfectly credible in their intents, they have to prove every day that they want really to help. They dont like it, but they have to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All that shooting into the sky after Saddam was caught-that was a bunch of disturbances.

If union protests lasted as long as that shooting then I'd be for it. But they don't .

How would allowing workers to unionize make the country go bankrupt?

I never said it would. Kid said screw gov't revenue and that this is no time to worry about that. I think not worrying about gov't revenue would lead to bankrupcy.

a law barring public sector unions is the sort of thing a democracy, which is in theory what we are trying to create in Iraq, should do.

But there is no democracy in Iraq yet. When things become well enough pacified to have a functioning democracy in Iraq, then unions can come back into the picture.

What will be thr righst of these workers?

We'll have to wait until the Constitution gets passed to find out, won't we?

[Az]

This, of course, raises a very interesting side debate about workers' rights in socialist societies.

[Ramo]

While generally causing a disturbance, which is not needed right now while dealing with terrorisms.

Well these "disturbances" might be too ****ing bad for us, but Iraqis have to eat too.

Isn't this what they are doing and what you are arguing against?

You misunderstood. If these industries are totally unprofitable, unions would be no threat to privatization. So, why would there be laws agains them?

That's one of the main problems with this line of argument. There is no democracy yet. Let's wait until we get a working government in Iraq before we bestow union rights.

Unions are a common factor in pre-democratic societies. Look at France, the German states, the Italian states, Spain, etc., etc. They are the basis of democracy, and in fact they are the basest form of democracy. Rebuilding a totalitarian society starts with rebuilding worker organization. See how the New Dealers dealt with a place like Japan. Unfortunatly, our gov't is extremely hostile to unions unlike the New Dealers so that isn't happening.

[chequita guevara]

I wonder what the AFL-CIO's take on all this is.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When is? When they go bankrupt?

There is no Iraqi govt to go bankrupt