When I was persuading a neighbour to join the appropriate trade union for his industry, I said, " You can join either from solidarity with your fellow workers or purely out of individual self-interest. Either motive will suffice."
Roan Tom wants to begin trading with the Nikeans by bringing them vitally necessary meteorological information. Addressing an "Engineer" (feudal lord) named Weyer, he says:
"'You can share the information with all Nike, or keep it your national secret. Could be useful, if you feel like maybe the planet should have a really strong Emperor, name of Weyer, for instance.'" (p. 536)
For Tom's purposes, either motive will suffice. His tone when making this concluding remark to Weyer is described as cynical.
Nicholas van Rijn had a knack of devising deals that satisfied all concerned, e.g., at the end of "Territory." Poul Anderson's narratives convey a sense of the vast length of time that has elapsed between van Rijn and Tom.
And the alliances that emerge between Tom's planet, Kraken, Yasmin's planet, Sassania, and the newly discovered Nike look like the beginning of the Allied Planets which will later send expeditions to planets like Lokon. It is all one history.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I would also sympathize with workers who are simply not "joiners," preferring to remain independent. That too would suffice for me.
I remember Roan Tom's discussion with the Engineer. Yes, appealing to his ambitions would be one means of Tom achieving his goals.
It makes sense, thinking Kraken, Sassania, and a Nike united by Engineer Weyer or his descendants became the core of the later Allied Planets.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Unions negotiate improvements of pay and conditions that benefit an entire workforce, including non-union members. By not joining a union, individuals deprive themselves of union representation when they might need it. There is no reason not to join.
In my experience, unions are run by full time bureaucrats who treat members with contempt but this is a reason to organize within unions and to campaign for their democratization, not to leave membership.
Paul.
Unions are stronger the more members they have. In Britain, an employer that negotiates with a union can "derecognize" it if its membership falls below a specified minimum level. Of course there are those who encourage workers not to join unions!
Kaor, Paul!
And too many times unions have been corrupt, violent, and behaving in other unlawful ways. Including harassing non-members or destroying the property of their employers. Also, like all large organizations, some bureaucratization is unavoidable, even necessary. So I remain skeptical of these efforts at reforming and "democratizing" unions. The cleanups never seem to last long!
Thus, I remain skeptical of unions. My view is that of Old Nick, they are tolerable as long as they remain "honest greedy."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Unions have been corrupt and violent because they have learned from their betters!
Unions are entirely defensive organizations of the working class but we are better with some defence than with none. Most of the time, unions are indeed inevitably led by a socially intermediate layer of bureaucrats who want to maintain their intermediate position with their salaries etc so their interests are far from being identical with those of their members. They would prefer to lose a strike than to lose control of it. They regard those of us who organize independently within their unions as a nuisance or a threat.
In Britain, these bureaucrats are represented politically by the Labour Party which is fully incorporated into the Establishment, providing an alternative government during the occasional periods when the ruling class party has lost a General Election. Extra-Parliamentary campaigners have to lobby both main parties.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, unions are so often corrupt because they are composed of human beings, are no different from anybody else. They are as flawed, imperfect, prone to corruption, violence, quarrelsomeness, folly, etc., as anybody else. I don't share your idealism about unions.
And I don't think it's good the "Labour Party" is wholly controlled by unions.
Being "honest greedy" about pay, benefits, working conditions should be enough.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I am idealistic about, if anything, human potential, certainly not about trade unions which are at best merely defensive and preserve the status quo.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I distrust idealism. We have seen too many horrors, too much bloodshed, esp. since the damnable French Revolution, in the names of various kinds of "idealisms." Enough, no more Utopian fantasies!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I am not "idealistic." I used that word because you had. The main difference that I was drawing attention to was between trade unions and human potential. There is great dissatisfaction with the present global status quo: wars and the threat to the environment. There is a lot of resistance. There are people seeking practical alternatives. This is not idealism or fantasy. It is survival.
Paul.
Post a Comment