“But you PWOMISED!” is basically what the strikers are saying.though is seems unfair to accuse these strikers of childishness when they are concerned with their ability to pay the mortgage and put food on their family's table - surely the most grown up thing of all?
This support for the consequences of globalisation is consistent with out strong support of the concept in the European Parliament, even if our more communitarian instincts can make us less keen on those consequences when they are evident more locally. A lot of Lib Dems, for instance, like independent coffee shops and say unkind things about the ubiquitous Starbucks.
But the problems for the Lib Dems over globalisation go deeper than that. Ever since it became a fashionable idea I have been struck by the contrast in the way globalisation impacts upon different classes.
Professionals have been busy forming committees to promote the harmonisation of qualifications across the EU so that it is possible for them to work in any country they choose. So for many in the British middle class globalisation holds the promise of pursuing their careers in a more agreeable climate.
Meanwhile, less well paid workers have constantly been told that globalisation means that they are competing with the poor of the third world, with the consequence that their pay and job security are under threat. For them, globalisation holds out no such happy prospect.
So how do we convince the workers that globalisation is good for them? Indeed, is it good for them?
7 comments:
I wonder if French/Italian/etc bosses would have been quite so willing to bring in a company from another country bringing its own labour to do a job? Or if the liberal elite in France/Italy etc would have had quite such a "get down you uppity working class oiks who don't share our enlightenment" kneejerk reaction to strikes about imported labour?
I suspect part of the problem is that in other European countries there is a certain social solidarity which would favour local labour, but here in Britain there isn't. One might be more willing to agree the liberal line if one could be sure it was reciprocated, and I'm not sure it is. Anyone care to reckon the chances of a British ci
ontractor bringing in British workers to do construction jobs in Naples, for example?
Well done. You have passed the initial module in 'becoming a socialist'.
Next week we'll examine 'what can be done to solve these problems'.
The stock answer would be lower costs.
The problem is however that we do not have a remotely free economy, which restricts opportunities for workers - something felt accutely in an economic downturn.
The striking workers would be far better off in a free economy because they would not necessarily be beholden to their employers. It would be far easier for them to start their own business, be it on the side or as their main occupation.
Unfortunately regulation is designed to stop this occuring.
For example, to start a restaurant you need commercial premises and numerous licenses. You need to get a high number of customers to make this viable.
In a freed market someone may operate a small restaurant business from their home, initially for their friends, but slowly building it if there's demmand.
There are a multitude of possibilities, each creating opportunities for supplementary income or a main income which is currently denied.
Its not globalisation (in the opening of trade and movement of people) which is bad, although we don't have free trade or free movement or anything close to a free market, it is the restrictions which deny opportunity which are harmful.
Matthew:
You make the usual mistake of thinking that because others harm themselves by preventing freedom, we must do so.
Its this sort of idiocy which leads to trade wars.
Ever wondered why sanctions are a punishment but we willingly impose them on ourselves in the form of tariffs and protectionism? Its stupid isn't it?
It doesn't matter one jot what the French do, what matters is what happens here, and as a whole there's benefit from migrant labour, to the migrants themselves (otherwise why would they do it), to the employers (ditto) and to the consumer.
The problem comes when alternatives for those badly affected are cut off.
Social solidarity is lacking, it should come in the form of community support for those affected (again, difficult when a whole community is forced into the arms of one employer as in mining towns - another problem of our unfree economy - although a wider area community can help - even international in today's world), but the state has tried to assume all such function, driving out alternatives, but failing at actually doing it.
Nothing will ever prevent suffering, but it could be mitigated through liberal reforms.
'So for many in the British middle class globalisation holds the promise of pursuing their careers in a more agreeable climate.'
Hmm, I think you'll find plenty of the 'working-classes' have re-located for the benefit of a more agreeable climate. And though I haven't the stats to back it up, I suspect they outnumber the 'middle-classes' pursuing theuir careers.
Tristan,
I don't know enough about these issues to say for sure. I think I'd need to see the exact nature of the contract and the workforce to be sure it really was fairly done. I'm not saying we should impose protectionism, I am saying I want to be sure if we play the game fairly so does everyone else.
From the point of view of the local workers, however, as Jonathan says, it's their livelihood which is at stake. So, no I don't like the supercilious line taken by most liberals on this issue that those workers are silly unpleasant people who don't have a right to be upset.
I think also it is rather hard to take lectures on what is good for you from the same people who were using the same lines to tell us the way our economy was developing was fine and dandy now we are in a big slump which suggests much of what they were telling us self-serving bullshit.
It's not about nationality per se, it's about the contracting business and the manipulation of EU case law.
Post a Comment