[PEN-L:1916] Re: French movement situation

[bill mitchell <ECWFM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BINARY CHOICES
>
>Micheal challenged:
>
>> 	glevy 12/12, overcome by nostalgia, cites "Which Side Are You On?" for
>> the proposition that it would be wicked indeed to challenge the motives,
>> good faith, need, or relevance of whoever happens to claim to be on the
>> side of The Union.
>>
>Jerry replied:
>
>Michael: You need to read more carefully. Other than citing the song, I
>said _none_ of the above.
>
>I recall that it was Harlan or Paris - one struggle one fight, Jerry . whatever
>did that mean other than an allusion to a dichotomy - union person or scab?
>
SID ON WHAT DOES THE UNION HAVE TO DO TO GET SUPPORT
>
>[PEN-L:1907] Response to Bill Mitchell

Sid said:
>
>I don't agree, Bill, that "In this context...the strikes are dismal failures
>[which] only show some sectors of the trade union movement grasping
>for more for themselves without fighting for the environment, the
>migrant workers, or even other non-migrant workers (with whom they
>have a privileged position in relation to)." I contend that if this were the
>case, the strikers would not be enjoying such a high level of public
>approval in France, despite the best efforts of the government and the
>capitalist press to paint them in much the same terms that you have
>used. In several interviews with folks on the street in Paris that I have
>heard, people have expressed the view that the unions are defending
>France's social safety net against neo-liberal incursions.


the population of france is greater than "several interviews". the disputes are
being organised by a very small part of the union movement (and the total union
movement is only about 8 per cent of the labour force). the disputes are
confined to trains, metro, buses and some postal services. the students are
irrelevant. other transport (private sector) is functioning, distribution to
shops etc (private sector) is functioning and most people in france are going
to work as before. the alleged degree of impact of the strikes is over done.
the society is not as affected as CNN might tell you. this is why the
population are largely ambivalent. hardly supportive. the majority of unions
have not supported the actions.

>It's true that the French unions didn't go on strike when the french
>dropped the bomb. Ergo? Progressives withhold their support until
>they take the right position on this issue?
>
yes definitely. any group that does not use what influence it has to stop this
sort of horror show is suspicious as far as i am concerned. you USA and
Canadian people might not get upset about the nuclear stuff but in OZ a french
embassy was burned down.

>You state that "they are happy to waste resources in a bloated health
>system." What evidence do you have that these workers are "happy"
>about the wastage of these resources, or that they are in any way
>responsible for that wastage? I have every confidence that the Canadian
>public health care system needs improvement, but the cure for what ails
>our health care system does lie neither in the gutting of the funding for
>that system nor in the privatisation of this system along American lines
>-- both of which our (neo-) Liberal federal government has been
>promoting in the name of deficit reduction.
>
ever lived in france Sid? the workers go to the hospitals for a sniffle. it is
an endemic part of the welfare system. there is no hint in the proposed french
reforms to the health system that they are planning to "gut" the system or
"privatise" it. don't use events that have happened in the american economy to
describe events going on in france to glide over the issue.

and moreover, the USA does not have a maastricht accord to meet.

>I know nothing one way or the other about whether these unions stand
>up to protect exploited migrants. If, in fact, it is the case (that they have
>failed to stand up in this manner), then what? You withhold support in
>the current situation until these unions stand up to protect exploited
>migrants?

yes definitely. i prefer to be in institutions that reflect my values. if the
unions cannot protect as their highest priority the least protected workers
(the migrant workers in france) then what substance have they got? none really
in my opinion. to me if they don't do this then they are as bad as the
capitalists and deserve to be ignored.


>
>I'm curious, Bill. Do you, personally, make unions in your country
>undergo a political litmus test prior to bestowing your solidarity when
>they ask for it?
>
yes definitely. the union movement in OZ have historically been major centres
of myopia, racism, sexism and have usually taken the easy way out and accepted
pittances (relatively) from the bosses as "rewards for bargaining". they have
become corporatised and built luxurious national offices in salubrious
surrounds. if they are not prepared to protect women, aboriginals, ethnic
minorities, take stances on environmental issues, etc etc, then we better
replace them with organisations that will do those things.

>
>Forgive me if I'm not particularly sanguine about a political strategy
>based on the old notion that "the worse it gets, the better." Carrying
>what sounds to me like a highly personalized, embitted political world
>view to its logical conclusion, I would think that you would be
>_opposed_ to forcing middle class folks to walk to work because the
>exercise will improve their health and you don't think they're worthy of
>having their health improved.
>
the existence of the middle class in post industrial capitalism is a major
constraint on the working class becoming in touch with itself. there is more
reason that ever to do so. but this class represents the success of capitalism
in compromising the workers with pitiful rewards. yeh, they have to get
uncomfortable before they will see exactly which side they are on. until they
start to suffer, the idea that there is a distinction b/tw capitalists and
workers will remain blurred. meanwhile the earth will continue screaming from
overproduction and waste.

>it is of primary importance that we express our solidarity with the struggle
>that is being waged. If, instead, you choose to wait for the participants
>in the struggle to meet your standards before adding the strength of your
>viuce to theirs, you may be waiting for a very long time.
>
yes a long time. but i prefer standards to compromises with say, racists and
sexists and corporatists etc.

BLOATED HEALTH SYSTEMS

ken hanly wrote:
>
>While the percentage of GDP spent on health care by France is larger than that
>of most European countries it is less than Canada and far less than the US.

yeh, but just b/c it is less bloated than the super bloats doesn't mean
anything like that it is correct.

>The US has inferior life expectancy than either country. If Canada is any
>example the cure for the bloat seems to be rough surgery with no anaesthetic
>and poor prognosis for the survival of a one tier health system. I'd prefer
>to pay for some bloating. It seems to be that "efficiency" is for the most
>part a code word for cutbacks in social programmes.


the major problems that will face the health systems is not separable from the
demographic changes (what proportion of elderly to working age) and the
structure of the pension systems. france puts canada and the usa to shame in
that regard.

i put some data up the other day. the pension gap (b/tw projected spending and
contributions) will narrow over the next 50 years in the us and canada but will
increase substantially in france in the next 15 or so years and then stabilise
at a new high level. pension outlays will be in the range of 6-8 per cent of
gdp in ca and usa, but will be in the range of 15-20 per cent of gdp in france
over the next 30-40 years.

for the US and CA the elderly dependancy ratios will rise over time but
stabilise around 0.4. for france the rise is more substantial and will peak at
around 0.6. the age of retirement in ca and usa is around 65. for france many
workers can go out on public pensions at 50 others at 60.


it is true though that the health care costs in the US and CA will rise
significantly, b/c not only are these populations ageing but they are still
growing. the ageing in the US is particularly bad in this regard b/c of the
high share of public spending on > 65 year olds. but for france it is the
package of pensions and health care arrangements that are very problematic.

the point though is that i don't value humans above the natural environment.
thus i place a huge weight on eliminating waste.

had enough on this topic for now.

which side am i on? what are the choices? if it is to be binary then lets make
sure the unions really represent the working class in general and are attacking
the capitalist class and not fellow workers through a complex of
unemployment/tax rises/spending cuts on the weak/ etc


kind regards
bill

--
         ####    ##        William F. Mitchell
       #######   ####      Head of Economics Department
     #################     University of Newcastle
   ####################    New South Wales, Australia
   ###################*    E-mail: ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   ###################     Phone: +61 49 215065
    #####      ## ###             +61 49 215027
                           Fax:   +61 49 216919
                  ##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html