Temp workers, the new class war

[RGacky3]

The raise of temporary workers in both the production industry and the distribution industry (Industrial capital and mechant capital in Marxianese) is a new trend in Capitalism, and is nothing less than a new assault on the working class by capital.

in just 2 years in the US temp workers have gone from 1.7 million to 2.3 million. (http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/05/the-rise-of-the-permanently-temporary-worker/)

Also in 2010, 26.2% of all private sector hiring has been temporary workers. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/should-the-rise-in-temporary-workers-scare-us/68293/) While in the 1990s, it was only 10.9% and in the early 2000s, it was only 7.1%

This goes also for the service sector white collar workers, many computer technicians are hired for a temporary basis, hired to create systems, then let go, then when something else is needed a new one pops up, or engineers/designers the same way.

In warehouses its even worse, even though this is a continous production line (unlike for example one off proudction such as construction, design and so on), and thus you would think permanent hiring would make sense, temping is a new great way companies like walmart are working. For example:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/1206warehouses_0.gif

This is something agriculture picked up a long time ago, wihch makes more sense for agriculture since agriculture is seasonal.

However one advantage of temp workers over fixed workers is similar to the advantage of wage labor over slavery for agriculture, your investment is extremely limited, you can work the temp workers much much harder, and allow things to damage their health and the effects are more external because they are temporary. An article inthe huffington post has tons of stories of people in temp warehouse jobs that are rediculously over worked. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/new-blue-collar-temp-warehouses_n_1158490.html?)

The company contracting the temp agency NEVER HIRES THE WORKER, and thus is not responsible for the worker at all, and the company that contracts the company contracting the temp agency IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the conditions there. A great example of this is the hershy factory incident, where no one was really responsible, yet the ultra-exploitation benefited all the capitalists involved.

Another benefit is the constant fear and desperation you put your workers in, the workers can be dismissed and replaced EASILY, and most are poor and desperate, thus you can have a superviser with a timer, forcing them to work harder and harder, and the workers will do it, why? Because they gotta eat, thus your productivity goes through the roof.

You then have almost no threat of a class war fightback, temp workers are almost impossible to organize, you go to a shop 2 different weeks and you have totally different workers, the workers have almost no connection to their job and thus would be harldy willing to put in the risk and try and organize.

Also the contracting nature of temp agencies makes it difficult to organize based on temp agencies, temp agencies don't "produce" anything, they provide workers in competition with other temp agencies, given that its very hard to organize workers at that level, because these agencies are not tied to production, and they literally loose nothing by dumping people, they also contract workers relatively independantly, you may not know any of the other people who work for that agency other than at your assignments.

Now you have chains like costco, that are run by genuinely progressive executives, that follow an American Apparel like model, i.e. treat your workers well, don't union bust, make good pay, and save money elsewhere, but like American Apparel, all it takes is someone else doing the same minus the good labor relations to beat you out. The "conscious" consumer factor dies pretty damn quickly when poverty goes up, like is happening in the United States.

Temp agencies are also beautiful for union busting, pitting desperate, poverty striken temp workers against union workers, allowing for the striping of union power through the threat of temp replacement.

This is the new working poor, the new class war, this is something that the unions need to recognize and start to deal with, traditional tactics won't work, the Hershies wildcat strike was one of the only temp worker fightbacks I know of. And the conditions there are not rare, temp workers are treated like dirt, they are worked to death for nothing.

As Capitalism deteriorates it will find anyhting to maximise profits, the working class must fight.

I don't have any answers to this, but its something Marxists should be studying, the eocnomic consequenes, the causes, the implication and so on.

[citizen of industry]

Of 40% of the workforce where I am is temp, and growing. In the industry I work in, temp jobs/independent contractor positions have stripped away all the benefits of employment. Since workers are not "employees," labor law doesn't apply and so we don't receive things like overtime, pension, unemployment insurance, health insurance, job security, guaranteed income, etc. And are easily disposable.

Organizing in this field is very difficult. I've been trying more or less unsuccessfully for years with general unions. You would think having so little to lose and so much to gain, people would be all up for unionizing. But in practice, people tend to want not to risk losing what little they have. They'd prefer to move on rather than fight against dismissal because the working conditions many think are not worth a fight. Often people have two or three part-time, temporary jobs so they can quit one and find another. The turnover rate is sky-high so even when people do join the union they tend not to stick around, and many don't join because they don't think they will stick around.

With so many people now temps, unionization rates have fallen, weakening the labor movement. So, yes, I agree, the unorganized temp sector is key, and I do my best to organize these workers. But it is a tough nut to crack. With a specialized job, say people working in automotive assembly, that get a decent salary, benefits, enough wages to support a family, have some level of pride in their work, they tend to organize and defend what they have, or increase that in times of growth. People who don't have pride in their jobs, don't get good wages or benefits, or even hours, aren't exactly pouring into the union hall. Especially when they could just be canned in favor of someone else with high unemployment.

Of course, these are the very reasons workers in this sector need to organize, but it doesn't look that way to someone with no class consciousness and no experience with unions.

Perhaps the answer is in political struggles like occupy? Maybe future forms of struggle will emphasize the political over the economic?

[RGacky3]

But in practice, people tend to want not to risk losing what little they have.

Exactly, and thats the genuis of temp labor, you as the capitalist can have a continual flow of labor while still keeping that labor continously "unemployed," and thus desperate and constantly on the edge of not being able to survive.


So, yes, I agree, the unorganized temp sector is key, and I do my best to organize these workers. But it is a tough nut to crack.

First of all, Good on you for making this attempt, The IWW did a pretty damn good job of tackling this problem in the past, but modern major unions don't even touch it, temp workers give you very little union dues, and very little actual power, also its unclear who you'd be negotiating with and who'd you'd be negotating for.

For this type of economic situation you need an explicitly class warfare narrative, in other words it cannot be this group of workers vrs that specific boss. The temp model has destroyed that union strategy. It needs to be this labor pool vrs the Capitalist class profiting from them, including the agencies, the contractors, and the main corporation.

The type of union would have to be a very decentralized one, extremely low, if any dues, and be mainly focused on direct action rather than direct negociation. A wildcat strike of temp workers, will force the "system" (the agencies, the sub-contractors, and the major corporations), to try and negociate, or try and find a solution, you can't do focused attacks because the capitalist will just shift the burden, it has to be overall.


Of course, these are the very reasons workers in this sector need to organize, but it doesn't look that way to someone with no class consciousness and no experience with unions.

Perhaps the answer is in political struggles like occupy? Maybe future forms of struggle will emphasize the political over the economic?

I guarnatee you, if you take leftist/marxist langauage out of it (this removing any redscare prejudice), you'll find temp workers are the MOST class conscious workers. But its fear thats holding them back, thats why organizing MUST be in a way where individual workers are not under threat.

Occupy is doing a very good job or forcing the issue in the public sphere, and forcing the political class to take it up and embarrasing and shaming the capitalist class.

But the economic struggle MUST come along with it.

In my opinion the IWW organizing model is one that other unions need to take, it worked in the past when capitalists used temp workers, it will work now. The ALF-CIO model, the teamster model, is'nt working.

[RGacky3]

BTW, the economic implications of this are great, the increase in the rate of exploitation will increase the profitability, however, much of these jobs (especially warehousing and retail) are dependant on strong consumption and credit, which seem to be weak right now, as credit is tight and consumption is weak.

But retail and warehousing has the major advantage of rising food prices, commodity prices, and a stronger rate of exploitation, this is why Walmart is so powerful, mechant capital has taken over industrial capital, I think industrial capital will go down the road of agriculture, as the rate of profit falls, but I am not sold on the idea that this will happen to merchant capital, as their profit is not mostly dependant on productivity, and the labor/capital ratio is not as important.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The idea of a massive rise in precarious work, weakening the power of the working class, has been very much overstated. Kevin Doogan's book 'New Capitalism' is very good on this. Neoliberalism appears to have pulled off a massive con trick in that it has increased the subjective nervousness of workers thinking about organising, whilst the actuality of employment relations has not radically changed. There was an interesting study he quotes where something like 25% of american workers surveyed felt that their job was at immediate risk, while the redundancy rate was only 1%. At least presently the capitalist class do appear to still value the long-term retention of labour - even in call centers, perhaps the classic image of the low pay un-skilled temporary workplace, people are there for an average of three years!

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11781

[Sasha]

This is/was a big thing for a while here in the movement, leading to the quite interesting development.of "precarious" theory where the "prekateriat" even replaces the proletariat as the prime revolutionary force in post fordist society.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Euromayday)
http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekariat

[citizen of industry]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2323113]The type of union would have to be a very decentralized one, extremely low, if any dues, and be mainly focused on direct action rather than direct negociation. [\QUOTE]

My latest union is the most democratic organization I've ever been in. Direct democracy, decentralized leadership. Very big libertarian socialist (whatever the fuck that means)/ anarcho-syndicalist influence (good!).

The focus is on direct action, negotiation doesn't exist because the corporations refuse to negotiate. Remember - temps or contractors, not employees who fall under labor law. Hence no need for the companies to abide by the law or grant concessions, hence no negotiations. Taking the route through the labor commissions (local and central), labor ministry, district courts, etc, also unsuccessful. The government doesn't rule in either sides' favor. Making years of courtroom battles purposeless and back to square one: 1)Temps/Contractors have the right to organize and join a union under law, but 2) Temps/Contractors are not employees and thus employers don't have to abide by labor standards law.

Actually, the only option for temps and contractors is to organize en masse and strike or work-to-rule. But this leads us back to recruitment. "We can't do anything for you in the courts, we can't negotiate with the employer, the only thing is for you to join and for us to strike." Pretty tough pitch to sell to people who have no union experience, no class-consciousness, are wary of losing their jobs, living hand-to-mouth and don't have much time to give.

Also dues - ours are quite high. It's a small union. Local dues are optional (opposed to union dues), our local voted no on local dues. But you have to have enough for the union to have a paralegal and meet basic expenses, when going up against huge corporations. Seems to me the smaller the union the larger the dues have to be, but the more democratic. The larger the union the cheaper the dues, the more bureaucratic and conservative it becomes.

[RGacky3]

The idea of a massive rise in precarious work, weakening the power of the working class, has been very much overstated. Kevin Doogan's book 'New Capitalism' is very good on this. Neoliberalism appears to have pulled off a massive con trick in that it has increased the subjective nervousness of workers thinking about organising, whilst the actuality of employment relations has not radically changed. There was an interesting study he quotes where something like 25% of american workers surveyed felt that their job was at immediate risk, while the redundancy rate was only 1%. At least presently the capitalist class do appear to still value the long-term retention of labour - even in call centers, perhaps the classic image of the low pay un-skilled temporary workplace, people are there for an average of three years!


Well it IS on the rise, especially in the United States, I don't know about the UK though.

From the article.


The number of part-time workers has risen by almost 2 million since 1992 to reach 7.9 million at the end of last year. However, it's important to remember that part-time work is not necessarily insecure or short term.

Thats true, but part time work is more likely to keep you in poverty leading to a lack of class courage.



Agency work has also increased. There are now somewhere between 1.1 and 1.5 million agency workers in Britain. Recruitment agencies have become a huge industry in themselves, with a combined turnover of more than £29 billion. Of course there are many different sorts of employment agency - some recruit to fill permanent posts or headhunt individuals but many fill temporary vacancies with short-term, low-wage contracts.



For the bosses, these workers are a commodity that they have invested in through training. So in many workplaces in both the private and public sectors you see a mixture of both permanent and temporary staff.

Thats true, but the nature of the job has a lot to do with a boss' value as well.


Pretty tough pitch to sell to people who have no union experience, no class-consciousness, are wary of losing their jobs, living hand-to-mouth and don't have much time to give.


Not only that but you also have the logistical problem of organizing people that have very little connection to each other.


Seems to me the smaller the union the larger the dues have to be, but the more democratic. The larger the union the cheaper the dues, the more bureaucratic and conservative it becomes.

ehh, I don't know, look at the IWW for example.

I think its a mistake to consign this to the political sphere and say we can't win the economic sphere, the political sphere can't win by itself, for this problem you need a new labor movement to attack it.

[citizen of industry]

ehh, I don't know, look at the IWW for example.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "expensive." My current union dues are about $25 a month, no sliding scale, and can be higher if the local decides to have it's own dues as well. That's more expensive than my last union, which was on a sliding scale. But the cheaper dues in the previous union didn't result in more members. There's also the problem of people who don't join the union for years, but then when they are about to get terminated come to the union asking for help. Most of those are lost causes, and are costly. People don't understand that for the union to have any power, it has to have membership. You can't just use it like a service when you are in trouble.


I think its a mistake to consign this to the political sphere and say we can't win the economic sphere, the political sphere can't win by itself, for this problem you need a new labor movement to attack it.

That's true. Hopefully the deteriorating conditions make for a revival of the labor movement. It is tough being a unionist in this era. Just read an article this morning how the 9-5 job is disappearing for the y-generation. That's us. I mean, we're going backwards for shitsakes. We're going to have to re-fight for the 8 hour day and two day weekend.

About merchant capital overtaking industrial capital. Yeah, I can buy that. I'm not sure what the exact ratio of capital goods vs. consumer goods is, but even if capital goods make up a larger market, it all comes down to selling the consumer goods in the end.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is/was a big thing for a while here in the movement, leading to the quite interesting development.of "precarious" theory where the "prekateriat" even replaces the proletariat as the prime revolutionary force in post fordist society.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Euromayday)
http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekariat

Well:


I just don't want sociologists to place Agency upon the "precariat," especially upon a stereotype for that social group (the low-income temp worker), just to compensate for the political obsolescence of the factory worker.


There are so many directions to take any analysis and conclusions on the "precariat" upon, and sorry for this being in note form:

1) Class vs. strata
- Always there? Revisiting "Ricardian" labour theory of price to describe unequal exchange and labour reproduction under-compensation? [Cockshott said Marx was "generous" in his LTV re. equal exchange and labour reproduction compensation before asserting that exploitation still exists.]
- Working poor only? Working-class students and pensioners? Unproductive work paid below living wage levels?
- Across classes? Back to "working classes" re. less differentiation from some poorer self-employed elements, such as freelancers?

EDIT: Tied to the first point is the question, "Iron Law of Precarity?"

2) "Organic links"
- Positive lessons of Labourism: some "organic links"? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/positive-lessons-labourism-t146759/index.html) Precariat unions affiliating a la Labour's unions?
- Japanese Communist Party's rising support among working-class youth as connection to precariat?

3) Immediate program
- “Sliding Scale of Wages”: Cost of Living Adjustments and Living Wages (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sliding-scale-wages-t98609/index.html)
- Private-Sector Collective Bargaining Representation as a Free Legal Service (http://www.revleft.com/vb/private-sector-collective-t124043/index.html)
- Public Employer of Last Resort for Consumer Services (http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-employer-last-t124658/index.html)
- Nationalizing temp/casual labour agencies? (http://www.rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/nationalizing-tempcasual-labour-agencies) (no formal commentary yet)
- National-Democratization, Health-Industrial Complexes, and Workers Insurance (http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-democratization-health-t144740/index.html)
- Educational Training Income Beyond Zero Tuitions (http://www.revleft.com/vb/educational-training-income-t139568/index.html)
- Full Belly Thesis and "Identity Politics" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/full-belly-thesis-t141396/index.html) (no formal commentary yet)


* Bump *

To paraphrase Marx:

Considering, that against this combined power of the elite classes the primary producers or precariat cannot unite and act for itself except by constituting itself into a mass party-movement, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties and movements, that this constitution of the precariat into a mass party-movement is indispensable in order to ensure the emancipation of its labour power,

That such labour power can be emancipated only when, at minimum, the precariat is in collective possession of all means of societal production, all commons, etc., that there are only two forms under which all means of societal production, all commons, etc. can belong to them or return to community:

1) The individual form which has never existed in a general state and which is increasingly eliminated by industrial progress;
2) The collective form the material and intellectual elements of which are constituted by the very development of capitalist society;

Considering,

That again this collective re-appropriation, or political and economic expropriation of the elite classes, can arise only from the direct action of the primary producers or precariat, organized in a distinct mass party-movement;

Such permanent organization must be pursued by all the means the precariat has at its disposal.


There are blogs over the past three or four weeks that say that the precariat is the "new working class." I, of course, have spread my message paraphrasing of Marx (see the last post in the precariat thread and then Google a phrase from this) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-things-precariat-t148669/index.html?p=2040823). Notice that "class" isn't mentioned in the paraphrase at all.

Recall various Marxist tendencies that glorified the factory worker as the only true proletarian. Well, now there's the danger of the more politicized sociologists doing the same thing with the temp worker, and remember that such isn't the only "precariat" position.


I think this shows exactly why the word "precariat" is misleading if referring to some new class and not to a new stratum crossing classes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-things-precariat-t148669/index.html?p=2004687).

This article should belong in the Economics forum, since there are so many ramifications posed by this article, against both finance capital and industrial capital, against productive labour and generally the wage labour system, etc.


Left-coms have fetishized the "precariat" phenomenon, when in reality it is becoming more and more a social stratum encompassing insecure elements in both the proletariat and one or two non-worker classes (heavily indebted petit-bourgeoisie vs. truly independent freelancers that I don't consider petit-bourgeois).

"Precariat" isn't something to be underestimated, but in a number of instances has already been overestimated.

[RGacky3]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "expensive." My current union dues are about $25 a month, no sliding scale, and can be higher if the local decides to have it's own dues as well. That's more expensive than my last union, which was on a sliding scale. But the cheaper dues in the previous union didn't result in more members. There's also the problem of people who don't join the union for years, but then when they are about to get terminated come to the union asking for help. Most of those are lost causes, and are costly. People don't understand that for the union to have any power, it has to have membership. You can't just use it like a service when you are in trouble.



THis is big thing, when I was in the organizing buisiness, there wern't that many of us that were dues paying members, yet everyone was benefiting, but it was ok for us, because it was a small shop and based on small shop politics and direct action.

When you get on a larger scale though, a Union NEEDS funds, strike insurance, legal funds and so on are indespensable.

comming to the union after you get laid off is like trying to fight the cancer on your death bed, you need to fight from the begining to stop it from even getting to that point, once its at that point its almost too late.


About merchant capital overtaking industrial capital. Yeah, I can buy that. I'm not sure what the exact ratio of capital goods vs. consumer goods is, but even if capital goods make up a larger market, it all comes down to selling the consumer goods in the end.

I'm talking about profitability, not capital goods vrs consumer goods, I don't know the difference between the 2, but profitability for manufacturing has dropped over time (like Marx predicted), whereas mechant capital has become profitable.

More importantly the power dynamic has changed. Back when you used to have neighborhoods stores who would ask for goods from the factory the factory had the upper hand, because generally the factory was a larger company and had many many different people to sell too, and they had major economic pull, they controlled the supply and had masses of wealth.

Now with the advent of super retail chains like walmart you have a whole different dynamic, industry has been outsouced, and now guys like Walmart buy in bulk, small orders are just less profitable (producing less than 100% capacity is not as profitable as producint at 100%), and Walmart can shop around, its gotten to the point to where its more of a command economy, with Walmart at the top and the producers below, no longer is the production/retail exchange a market exchange, its a command economy. At this point if you work in a consumer good factory, you essencially work for the retailer, it used to be one factory would have many many many different retail customers, now one retail customer has many many factories.

[RGacky3]

LK94lITp5R0

[Blake's Baby]

We were debating this around 2004, I think, with the beginnings of the recognition of precariat by comrades in Spain - the ICC has several interesting documents from that period and some of the things they quote are worth chasing up:

http://en.internationalism.org/node/1137 (from 2004 though it's dated 2005 as that was when it was put online)
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/285_precarity.html (from 2005)
http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/1067 (from 2004)

But I remember half-arsedly organising against the casualisation of labour where I was 20 years ago; it's not a new problem for the working class.

I don't say this often, but I do agree with DNZ that 'the precariat' isn't a new class. I disagree that it's a new 'cross-clas social stratum' however. It's part of the working class. I don't really care that some petit-bourgeois are finding themselves in the same boat.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But I remember half-arsedly organising against the casualisation of labour where I was 20 years ago; it's not a new problem for the working class.

I don't say this often, but I do agree with DNZ that 'the precariat' isn't a new class. I disagree that it's a new 'cross-clas social stratum' however. It's part of the working class. I don't really care that some petit-bourgeois are finding themselves in the same boat.

What class would you consider actual freelancers to be in, then?

[RGacky3]

Working class, most of them have to sell their labor to survive, in some situations they do own the capital (like a free lance photographer), but they are actually much more vulnurable and exploited many times than straight up workers.