MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > International Working Class Economic Dis...

International Working Class Economic Disparity


A very good friend of mine just posted this info on his Facebook page:

Burger King has different compensation packages in different countries.

In the USA, BK employees earn $9 an hour, do not receive paid vacation time and have no pension plan.

In Denmark, BK employees earn $20 US an hour, get 5 weeks paid vacation and have a pension plan.

Discuss. Compare and contrast. Please try not to kill anyone. And, yes, this info is for real.

reply

Not that hard to figure out. In Europe, for the most part, employees are regarded as real live people and are treated as such, whereas here, they're seen more as commodities to earn profit, which is far more important to corporations than treating emplpyees better.

reply

This is putting the cart before the horse, really. It wasn't always that way in Europe. These attitudes didn't come from nowhere. It came from the self-organization of the working class, which went on strike and rioted and battled police repression and fascist terror and produced communist, social-democratic and labor parties to represent it. Many of those parties still survive and, while most of them have strayed far from their old revolutionary principles, they still are rooted in the working class and have defended, either as a result of principle or popular pressure, the gains of the labor movement. It's this dynamic that has created the attitude you speak of, that employees are human beings who matter. It's because the employees raised their voices and demanded to be treated as such, for decades, and continue to do so. The fact that the European capitalists had to keep a wary eye to the east for 70 years, where several socialist governments existed as permanent reminders of what happens when workers become fed up, also greatly helped the cause of Western European workers.

The US once had a powerful labor movement, but it was never as radical as the European labor organizations and it never produced a strong political labor party to represent itself. Also, the way the US political system is structured is particularly inhospitable to such a party, which for various reasons would lack the power that European labor parties have been able to achieve in their parliamentary governments. As such, the US working class was unable to acquire a political class consciousness and it was unable to defend its gains once the McCarthyite Red Scare broke the unions by purging them of their most militant members. The American working class never acquired any measure of independent political power to assert a narrative of its own. The fact that the American workers were, and remain, far more divided by racism than the more homogeneous European workers has also long hampered their cause.

reply

The difference is rooted in the strength and durability of the labor movement in different countries. In the US, the labor movement was shattered by the McCarthyite purges in the 1950s, and the neoliberal offensive from the 1980s onward wiped out most of the gains the labor movement had previously made.

In Western Europe, the ruling class was forced to grant wide-ranging economic concessions to the working class in the aftermath of World War II. There was immense pressure from below from a miserable and ruined population, which also widely admired the Soviet Union for its economic successes in the 1930s and for bearing the brunt of the anti-fascist war (this was before decades of anti-communist propaganda largely erased the USSR's role in WWII from the historical memory of the European peoples). At that time, a revolutionary wave was sweeping the world and capitalist regimes were falling one after another in Europe and Asia. There was great fear by the Western ruling classes that it would soon spread to Western Europe, and indeed it very nearly did in France and Italy. In light of this, Western governments granted enormous concessions to the powerful labor movement and established strong welfare states to pacify the working class and "prove" that life under capitalism could be "better" than under socialism.

Since the fall of the socialist world, many of these gains have been chipped away at by neoliberal austerity in most of Western Europe (and of course the Eastern European social welfare systems have been completely wiped out), but there are still strong vestiges of these previous gains, which mildly left-wing parties rooted in the labor movement have managed to save and which the still fairly well-organized working class periodically strikes and riots to defend. None of this is seen in the US, where the workers were declawed and demobilized by McCarthyism 70 years ago, and where they never produced a labor party of their own to defend their gains.

reply

"the neoliberal offensive from the 1980s onward wiped out most of the gains the labor movement had previously made."

Don't agree completely with that. I think the problem was even more created by the unions, in typical American fashion, becoming greedy and corrupt and focusing more on lining their own pockets than helping workers.

reply

I would be interested in knowing your background in terms of education and where you call home, To say that the USSR was admired for its economic success during the 1930's is very strange to me. It's like saying a patient who is on an IV and pain relievers is a success when compared to a patient on life support. To say that the Soviets bore the full brunt of the Second World War is a misnomer as France bore the full brunt first and buckled under because of under estimating German resolve. Had France and Britain taken the threat seriously during the mid-1930's Hitler would have neutralized well before the German's marched into Paris. The union movement suffered here because of internal corruption and international competition. Japanese products went from being jokes during the 1960's to well regarded by the late 1970's.

reply

Your perspective on the USSR is a recent one. Had you lived at the time, in the conditions of the time and before 70 years of anti-communist propaganda discolored the USSR, you may have seen it differently. In the 1930s and 40s the USSR was noted among many people as being the only country that was largely insulated from the Great Depression by its non-market, planned economy, and its economic growth during those years was unparalleled in human history. The USSR dragged itself out of the middle ages to become one of the most advanced industrial countries in the world in the space of a generation. The social and economic gains it achieved for its people were unparalleled, and some of the same public services first developed in the USSR were later conceded in Western Europe. It's simply absurd to suggest that Western Europe spontaneously developed an attitude that "workers are people who deserve to be treated well" without mentioning the USSR and the political challenge it posed to capitalism as an alternative economic model, a model that many took seriously then. We're talking now after decades of anti-communist propaganda and the fall of that system have discredited it in many Western eyes, but it wasn't always so.

The Soviets most certainly did bear the brunt of the war and this was universally understood at the time. Eight out of every ten fascist soldiers who died in Europe died on the Soviet front. 27 million Soviets died in this struggle. It was the Red Army that wiped out the cream of the Wehrmacht. Of course all countries, including France, did their part, but it's ludicrous to say that France bore the brunt when it was the Soviets that were fighting the lion's share of the fascist divisions.

The union movement suffered from corruption in large part because of the aforementioned McCarthyist purges, which robbed the unions of their best and most militant members and turned them into yellow unions.

reply

Your perspective on the USSR says that you are a native son of it who favors the days prior to the early 1990's. While the USSR may have been insulated from the world economy during the 1930's it certainly did not provide most of its citizens the standard of living found in Western Europe and North America that existed prior to 1929 and after 1945. How exactly did the USSR lift itself out of the Middle Ages? Most industrial innovations came out of the West and were dragged into the USSR covertly in a lot of instances. How was the USSR one of the most advanced industrial nations after 1945? The US certainly benefitted from fleeing German scientists and more so the USSR. Jet fighter technology would not have come for many years later than it did for the USSR if the USSR was not able to snag its own group of German scientists. You need to work on your reading compensation as I never said that the Soviets did not bear the brunt of the Third Reich but rather France was the first to do so. The Soviets did not lift a finger to help stall Hitler's western movement. I believe that Stalin secretly was rooting for the Germans to knock out the long standing Western European military powers so he could achieve his ultimate goal which was the partitioning of Europe. Further, that Stalin had a better read on the effectiveness of Hitler as a military strategist and leader versus the other world leaders sans Roosevelt. That Hitler's ego would get the best of him and in the process commit an over-reach on objectives.

reply

BiffGG, you just made the point that I was going to: Soviet technological advances grew in the soil of the Fatherland--and the same is also largely true for the US, the place where I live. As soon as WW II ended, the USA and USSR raced each other to see which one could collect the most and the best German scientists and engineers--the folks who created the first rocket, the first jet plane and the drug meth/crank/speed, to make their fighter pilots more efficient. In the movie, The Right Stuff, there is a scene where the Eisenhower administration are trying to figure out how the Soviets beat the US into space (in large part by not being concerned about safety),
and Ike asks, "Do they have better scientists than we do?" Whernher von Braun dramatically steps out of the room's shadows and says, "No, Mr. President, zey do not. Our Chermans are better zan zheir Chermans!"

reply

I would still like to know Kira's idea as to who the USSR's version of Henry Ford was? John Deere? Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? and so forth. Who were these heroes of the USSR that improved the lives of the rank and file citizen through better food, communications, transportation, etc.? Lee Harvey Oswald is the subject of another ongoing thread here and his defection to the USSR proved temporary. That with most likely preferential treatment Oswald did not see the USSR as an every man's paradise and returned to the US in short order. If the USSR did pace the US it would have been for a very brief time. Kind of like a Model T catching a Corvette at a service station. Certainly the Corvette owner had to have goofed off for it to happen and once the Corvette hit the open road that was the end of that competition.

reply

Others have covered some of the historical aspects.

The simplest explanation is, it's the law. Multinational corporations still have to comply with local labour laws. I'm going to assume that even if they operate in a country with lower wages compared to the US, they still have to pay into Health Care, pension funds, paid vacation (no less than 20 days here), paid maternity leave (2 years here), and all that. There are also local regulated minimum, etc., wages, that they have to comply with. If they do things by the books that is...

Also, culture probably plays a role. Europe is more social leaning than the US. We expect and demand all those social benefits that I listed above (those vary country to country of course /and some employers circumvent the law/).

You have to ask yourself, what's wrong with the US's labour laws that BK, a huge, legitimate business, can get away with not providing a pension fund and pain vacation, at the very least.

reply

You have to ask yourself, what's wrong with the US's labour laws that BK, a huge, legitimate business, can get away with not providing a pension fund and pain vacation, at the very least.


Pain vacation? Who wants that?!?!?

Joking aside, you are right. It is not out of the kindness of their hearts that Burger King in Denmark gives five-week paid vacations to their employees, it is because of labour laws.

reply

There have been many excellent, well-reasoned and infomed posts here. Thank you! It seems most of us agree that the root of the different compensation packages lies in a nation's culture. Let me, as a US citizen, ask my friends around the world, is there any country other than mine that ADMIRES outlaws? I'm not talking about people like my Founding Fathers or Robin Hood, who are breaking laws in the service of what they perceive as a greater good. I'm talking about rustlers, crooks, hoods, hit men, wise guys; people who are only out for themselves. Folks whose code is "take whatever the fuck you can get away with." I think the US as a culture is unique in the world in its laissez-faire core value. We see life as a zero-sum proposition: for me to succeed, someone else must fail. That's why BK in the US is paying 9 bucks an hour. I don't agree that greed is good. Greed does great harm. And while I agree that the US labor movement lacks the robust laborite cultures found elsewhere, and agree that union leaders' personal greed harmed the unions, and that Joe McCarthy' Red Witchhunt also weakened the unions, I submit the most damage was done when so many major unions climbed into bed with organized crime. Whatever happened to Jimmy Hoffa? I'll end my rant about Outlaw Nation by asking you this: What other country, without coercion, would elect the son of a well-known bootlegger as its President? And, 3 years later, not really know who shot the top of that President's head clean off?

reply

Well, since we're talking about communism, that's one of the "cool" legacies left over from that time, the mentality that you have to cheat the system to get ahead (mixed with the very abrupt switch from one system to the other, where you went from restrictiveness to complete freedom). The cheating the system was maybe somewhat understandable with a tightly controlled system, because you didn't have a choice sometimes, but in the 90's, after the regime fell, all hell broke loose (read as greed /along with free enterprise, which was good/). Then it became every men for himself kind off. And there is a bit of, as you put it "for me to succeed, someone else must fail."

A lot of unsavoury characters gained power and money, organised crime came into existence, and the next logical step was to get into politics. That why we have oligarchs. I wouldn't say the crooks themselves are admired, but the mentality behind that is somewhat. But I don't know how much of it is from the local culture, and how much is "imported" from countries with longer capitalist traditions.

(I hope all this makes sense, since I've lost track of my point, and I'll end it here :D)

So, yeah, you're not alone, you're with EE. But without paid vacation, a pention fund, maternity leave, national health care /as broken as the system is/, and self-awareness maybe ;P.

P.S. Obviously it's more complex than that, and different countries move with different pace, but broadly speaking...

reply