"Faux-petit-bourgouisie"

[Comrade Gwydion]

There's a phenomenon I've witnessed recently at work in the Netherlands.
Not satisfied by the speed of deregulation and stripping away of worker's rights, a lot of dutch corporations force their employees to become, juridically, petit-bourgouise.

An example I can give are mailmen. We have seperate mailservices for packages and letters. Recently our local package-mailman was forced to start his own company and become "self-employed" (ZZP'er in Dutch). He still does the same job for the same company, only because they don't hire him for his labour but "buy his product/service", his workers rights are gone. They can now pay him per package instead of per hour, and every package he can't deliver (because there's nobody at home to receive the package) is detracted from his earnings.

I also see this in other sectors. A lot of government-workers for example become ZZP'ers who in fact stil do the same job. Sometimes this is because they can earn a higher salary that way, but other times it's for the same reasons as above.

Would it make sense to classify this as a sort of "faux-petit-bourgoise"? I'd imagine most of these people to be in effect proletariat, but in the statistics they allways end up in the "self-employed" part. Any thoughts?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

A company did this to me in 2010. The agreement was to be on 1099 (what it's called in the US - 1099 / Independent Contractor) for a month then switch to standard full-time employment (understand - I was DESPERATE for work). 3 months later ... I'm still 1099 ... beating the boss's door down ... wondering where my health care and everything is at.

Then he gets annoyed and says my contract is up.

Poof, bye bye job.

In the US, the employer doesn't have to pay any taxes if you're 1099. You have to pay 100% of the taxes they would have had to pay ... to pay you. Plus what you would have normally had to pay. And since you're technically self-employed ... no benefits. No healthcare. No nothing. And if you're not careful ... they just have to tell you your contract is ended and you're gone. No unemployment benefits, etc.

Another thing people are doing here is abusing "Unpaid Internships" in order to get free labor. More on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

Would it make sense to classify this as a sort of "faux-petit-bourgoise"? I'd imagine most of these people to be in effect proletariat, but in the statistics they allways end up in the "self-employed" part. Any thoughts?

They are faux self-employed, not faux petit-bourgeoisie. The latter tend to own, lease, or rent business-related assets, while the former don't.

Juridically, the faux self-employed aren't entitled to tax deductions for expenses incurred in the process of deriving "self-employment" income.

Some stripper groups in the US had a recent court case on this.

[Dave B]

It sound to me more like piece work;

Karl Marx. Capital Volume One

Chapter Twenty-One: piece wages

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch21.htm


The Lenin was all for the idea;


We should immediately introduce piece work and try it out in practice. We should tryout every scientific and progressive suggestion of the Taylor system; we should compare the earnings with the general total of production or the exploitation results of railroad and water transportation and so on.

The Russian is a poor worker in comparison with the workers of the advanced nations, and this could not be otherwise under the regime of the czar and other remnants of feudalism. To learn how to work—this problem the Soviet authority should present to the people in all its comprehensiveness.

The last word of capitalism in this respect, the Taylor system—as well as all progressive measures of capitalism—combine the refined cruelty of bourgeois exploitation and a number of most valuable scientific attainments in the analysis of mechanical motions during work, in dismissing superfluous and useless motions, in determining the most correct methods of the work, the best systems of accounting and control, etc. The Soviet Republic must adopt valuable scientific and technical advances in this field.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/soviets.htm

Not so the Mensheviks, again from Lenin;



Or take the Menshevik Vperyod of the same date, which contains among other articles the following “thesis” by the notorious Menshevik Isuv:

“The policy of Soviet power, from the very outset devoid of a genuinely proletarian character, has lately pursued more and more openly a course of compromise with the bourgeoisie and has assumed an obviously anti-working class character. On the pretext of nationalising industry, they are pursuing a policy of establishing industrial trusts, and on the pretext of restoring the productive forces of the country, they are attempting to abolish the eight hour day, to introduce piece-work and the Taylor system, black lists and victimisation. This policy threatens to deprive the proletariat of its most important economic gains and to make it a victim of unrestricted exploitation by the bourgeoisie.”

Isn’t it marvellous?





http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Re taxes etc there is a scam in the UK over ‘piece workers’ and they have even formed there own organisation called the Professional Contractors Group.

You set up your own company and piece work eg computer programming. Your own company pays you the minimum wage so your income tax is minimal.

Because the piece work is highly paid but the nominal wages are low the ‘company’ makes a handsome profit which is paid out in dividends to wage worker/owner of the company.

As the rate of tax on profit or dividends is lower than income tax the net income of the worker- owner is higher.

The Government in an attempt to combat it with its IR45 legislation considers them, not quite in Marxist terms as disguised employees.

[Thirsty Crow]

Would it make sense to classify this as a sort of "faux-petit-bourgoise"? I'd imagine most of these people to be in effect proletariat, but in the statistics they allways end up in the "self-employed" part. Any thoughts?
I don't think it would make sense to use the term "faux petite bourgeois" in this instance (I pretty much agree with DNZ). And yes, these people are in fact proletarians, and these measures (especially what CanisLupus addresses as unpaid internship, or in other places known as volunteering - which is hardly voluntary in some instances mind you, but related to the direct pressure from the state's unemployment bureau which threatens to withdraw unemployment "benefits" if a person doesn't "volunteer" to work without being paid!) represent the increase in surplus value obtained by the enterprise by means of cutting costs of obtaining labour power. In other words, class stuggle, but from the opposite direction.