Of course the C-suite doesn't care. To them, we workers are merely costs; the fact that without us they would have no product is never to be acknowledged. We were once personnel--you know, respected. Then rebranded as human resources--like natural resources; things to be strip mined and clear cut, profit extracted, and the valueless rema…
Of course the C-suite doesn't care. To them, we workers are merely costs; the fact that without us they would have no product is never to be acknowledged. We were once personnel--you know, respected. Then rebranded as human resources--like natural resources; things to be strip mined and clear cut, profit extracted, and the valueless remains tossed aside.
Yes, it sure IS about respect!!! And it's not just that arrogant bosses denigrate us, either. It's all too common (as are we, I guess) that upper middle class liberals in places like, for example, North Berkeley's Gourmet Ghetto, by body language as well as actual words make it clear we're merely the help and they expect deference. It rankles.
Yesterday, Les Leopold on his "Wall Street's War on Workers" blog wrote about how D party strategists like James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel are now talking populist. Apparently they've noticed the roiling anger about things like 30 million workers hit by mass layoffs 1996-2024. Done mostly to finance stock buybacks that suck up corporate profits to benefit CEOs and banksters while producing nothing. Yet not a word from the Dem party about an issue that would have been a winner. But at the cost (literally) of alienating their corporate sponsors.
We'll see if the Ds are serious. If in addition to talk, they do the work of forming political alliances. If they speak with us workers as labor allies in a common cause. If they ask for advice from people like Jim, a real populist from the farmer side of the Populist farmer-labor coalition. If they start discussing publicly why union membership is important. Not just wages, either. Union workers are under contract law. Non-union workers come under a provision inherited from English Common Law--it's called a "Master-Servant relationship." Really!!! What does that imply about how elites think of us?
Of course the C-suite doesn't care. To them, we workers are merely costs; the fact that without us they would have no product is never to be acknowledged. We were once personnel--you know, respected. Then rebranded as human resources--like natural resources; things to be strip mined and clear cut, profit extracted, and the valueless remains tossed aside.
Yes, it sure IS about respect!!! And it's not just that arrogant bosses denigrate us, either. It's all too common (as are we, I guess) that upper middle class liberals in places like, for example, North Berkeley's Gourmet Ghetto, by body language as well as actual words make it clear we're merely the help and they expect deference. It rankles.
Yesterday, Les Leopold on his "Wall Street's War on Workers" blog wrote about how D party strategists like James Carville and Rahm Emmanuel are now talking populist. Apparently they've noticed the roiling anger about things like 30 million workers hit by mass layoffs 1996-2024. Done mostly to finance stock buybacks that suck up corporate profits to benefit CEOs and banksters while producing nothing. Yet not a word from the Dem party about an issue that would have been a winner. But at the cost (literally) of alienating their corporate sponsors.
We'll see if the Ds are serious. If in addition to talk, they do the work of forming political alliances. If they speak with us workers as labor allies in a common cause. If they ask for advice from people like Jim, a real populist from the farmer side of the Populist farmer-labor coalition. If they start discussing publicly why union membership is important. Not just wages, either. Union workers are under contract law. Non-union workers come under a provision inherited from English Common Law--it's called a "Master-Servant relationship." Really!!! What does that imply about how elites think of us?