When did people begin to think their employment is a personal possession

[RB TexLa]

or national possessions.

[Uben]

1. Since I own my own business......

...I do consider it a personal possession. I think everyone who owns one does. Wouldn't you?

[RB TexLa]

4. That's different, I'm more talking about if your employees felt jobs were their personal

possessions.

[Gman]

11. LOL! That's one of the toughest things about managing people

they tend to take personal possession of their job/task and can strongly resist change because of it. I had to deal with that so I know what you mean (if that's what you mean.)

[kentuck]

66. I would say it is better for employees to see their labor as their possession...

..rather than for employers to see employees as personal possessions. It is inhumane to look at a job as something possessed that is superior to the humanity of the person doing the labor. It is a sickness that needs treatment to think in such a way.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Can you be more specific?

Thanks.

[HughBeaumont]

16. He will not be specific with you.

:rofl:

[Gold Metal Flake]

30. ROFL!

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

38. True.

:rofl:

[Codeine]

52. oh shit.

:spray:

[Iggo]

41. But then you'd see the fisherman...

...instead of just the worm.

;-)

[leveymg]

3. January 6, 1941 - Read FDR's 4-Freedoms and later the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

The Declarations

The speech delivered by President Roosevelt incorporated the following
“ In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
”

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
The four freedoms flag or "United Nations Honor Flag" ca. 1943-1948
United Nations

The concept of the Four Freedoms became part of the personal mission undertaken by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt regarding her inspiration behind the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217A (1948). Indeed, these Four Freedoms were explicitly incorporated into the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which reads, "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common people,...."

[JVS]

5. When did people begin to think of productive capital as a personal possession?

[annabanana]

58. +1 . . . .n/t

[HereSince1628]

6. I think things like wars for Capitalism--Korea and Vietnam for example

Sort of suggested that our military was protecting our national economy.

If you go back and read the constitution about tariffs etc, and contemplate the cold war you could easily get the idea that from the beginning until the end of the empire, the national economy was something that belonged to the nation and that the nation would vigorously defend.

When did Corporations get the notion that military and international trade policy concerned only THEIR profits and that their profit interest could include destroying the national economy generations had built and fought to defend?

[Waiting For Everyman]

48. Ding Ding Ding... Exactly right

National economy is the only concept with a grain of rationality, or any chance of ever working in a positive way. There was a reason why it was done that way, and that has not changed. We and the world have gone the opposition direction and we see the results. And this will never work because it cannot work. It never will, no matter how many times we do it.

Einstein's definition of insanity certainly applies. We think that we are so advanced that what has always worked does not apply to us. Wrong! That's like living our lives as if gravity is outdated, or the the earth's orbit.

All we are following now is nonsense right wing fairy tales into mass destruction for the sake of a few arbitrary vermin who are made rich selling us lame delusions.

[eShirl]

7. when did the rich think it was ok to screw over their country in pursuit of more lucre?

oh wait... forever

[Hannah Bell]

8. you hear people say, "you think the world owes you a living"? but actually,

i think in some fundamental sense, it does.

[sibelian]

56. I think it's more that The World, being more than capable of providing me with a living

should not be artificially prevented from doing so.

[Hannah Bell]

61. that too. my thought was in the state of nature, nature provides me a

living with a minimal amount of work.

when human beings monopolize resources & make it impossible for a large fraction of the population to get a living except by the humiliation of the "charity" of the monopolists, things are out of balance.

[sibelian]

62. Elegantly put!

D'accord...

x

[Starry Messenger]

9. Probably after primitive accumulation pushed people off of producing their own subsistence

and were forced to pursue wages to survive, having no other choice to do that or die, courtesy of the owners.

[XanaDUer]

19. +1

nt.

[sibelian]

57. Perfect response...

.... is perfect.

:)

I love you.

[grahamhgreen]

10. The purpose of any countries economic system is to provide jobs for it's populace.

[RB TexLa]

12. We've moved past countries in terms of economic thought. The concept of

national economies has always been a hindrance. Nationalist thought is a mental disease.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. So nationalized roads, military, etc are bad? nt

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I genuinely don't understand your distinction

and would appreciate a clarification.

Thanks.

[grahamhgreen]

21. Pretending that the worlds economy was not global when we dumped Chinese tea into the Boston Harbour

Is part of the problem.

Another is that while other countries have national economic policies, we do not - this is exactly why we have lost jobs & destabilized our economy.

[HereSince1628]

22. I really believe that you think that, but I don't

People will always be connected to their local and regional economies. National economies are a consequence of regional economies occurring within political borders. We are a very long time from removing political borders.

If you think about peak oil, and the foreseeable peak coal, it isn't hard to foresee the time when relatively cheap energy for transoceanic transport will draw to a close. The energy subsidy for international trade in real goods is going to find itself facing problems of sustainability. Energy dense fuels are going to get very expensive, that will force shipping to work with less dense sources of energy and place new break-even points upon shipped goods. Regional and local economies with less shipping costs and fewer uncertainties could develop, once again.

Of course, that's speculative, and each of us can conjure up alternative realities to deal with hypothetical problems and we could spend 100's of hours swapping them. But the unavoidable reality is cheap energy is disappearing and the future will favor economic realities that demand less energy, and probably less dense energy. I do think regional and local economies get favored in that scenario.

[raccoon]

28. Just one minor thing: most countries will hire their own citizens a heckuva

lot quicker than non-citizens.

Regardless of whenever or not nationalist thought is a mental disease.

[JVS]

35. I don't engage in economic thought with you.

[HughBeaumont]

39. ZING!

:rofl:

[sibelian]

60. Saruman....

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

[WatsonT]

25. I thought food and some minimal level of creature comfort

was more important than having a job.

In many countries you were guaranteed a job, food on the other hand . .. not so much.

I'd call their economies failures.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. I don't think it's necessarily "jobs" but provide for their wellbeing. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[retread]

17. Indentured have NO rights of ownership? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Well, Tex, I think the history in some States shows the opposite

That employers actually thought of workers as personal possessions, chattel if you will. Some of those States tried to start a country, a nation based on people as possessions.
So when I hear certain regions bring up the idea of employees and 'ownership' as being tied together, I tend to proceed with caution.
Perhaps you could clarify. Employers have claimed to actually own their workers in some States. We had a war about that.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Perhaps when slavery and indentured servitude were abolished?

[nuxvomica]

24. When employers started telling them "That's your job"

or "You are responsible for that" or "Do your work". Or "Why should I give you a job?" If you "give" someone a job, it must be a personal possession, right? Things like that. It's the way we talk about work. That's the personal possession part of it. The national possession is probably an extension of that.

[Heidi]

26. Yet no one complains when employees are so invested in the company's success

that they give more to their employers than they must by working harder than they're compensated for.

I personally find it far more alarming when employers think of their employees as personal possessions, attempting to regulate who they sleep with, how they "represent" the employer when they're off the clock, etc.

Edited for typo.

[TBF]

27. This started ages ago with capital deciding they own all people and their labor.

And still we fight because they succeeded in stealing most of the money.

Why do I have to wake up to these right-wing memes on DU? Unrec for idiocy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. When did employers begin to think 50-90% of my productivity was their personal possession?

[JVS]

37. When you didn't kill them for appropriating that much.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

65. Oddly, murder was low on my list.

Caught the snark. I'm a veritable genius.

[JVS]

68. That's the kind of priorities that make you lose the class struggle.

[Gold Metal Flake]

31. Prove that they do.

[PA Democrat]

32. When did corporations begin to think that our air, our water, all of our

natural resources are their personal possessions? When did they begin to think politicians were their personal possessions whose sole purpose is to enact legislation to further enrich their biggest shareholders?

[nessa]

33. How is it not your personal possession?

Your services are yours to sell, a company can purchase those services or not. If a you agree to a price with a purchaser, then you have employment. If you can't find someone to buy what you're selling then you don't have employment. You can't force them to purchase and they can't force you to provide, you have to agree.

[Disintermedia8]

34. Well that settles it. I can now make it official.

There is no distinction between those who call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Even the individuals who apply a label to themselves have no idea what it means. What I find curious though, is that the Democrats who have eagerly sopped up conservative positions such as the OP has staked out, are the first to sing the praises of their party, missing the irony that their position on an issue is indistinguishable from the people they consider their opponents.

[Orsino]

36. When it became necessary to their survival. n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[last_texas_dem]

43. I figure for as long as people have a) been employed

by someone other than themselves, and b) not been enslaved.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

[treestar]

45. The need to have a job and the terror at not having one

And for many moving from job to job is an upheaval.

Also the relative security of jobs in the 20th century - if you did a good job, you generally could keep it. The employment at will doctrine did not turn up to hit people in the face that often.

Then people become identified with that particular job.

There have to be paying customers for what the employer produces, in large enough numbers to pay salaries. That's the rub. People need their jobs and therefore can't get this logic. They should be paid to make stuff no one wants if that's what they need. Where the money is to come from? They don't know (or you see an assumption that "the corporations" just have money).

Health insurance being tied to the job could be a factor, too.

[Ozymanithrax]

46. My skills that I trade for pay are my possession, and have been since...

the 13th and 14th amendment were passed.

[Dappleganger]

47. You can't explain that!

You go in to work, you leave work. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can't explain it. You can’t explain why the job is there.





:rofl:

[annabanana]

59. hahahahahahahahaha!!. . . .n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

49. IT'S THE RB TEXLA SHOW!

This week, RB studies Zen!

[HughBeaumont]

53. "Foreigner, I do not do business with you . . ."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7597485

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[blondeatlast]

50. Sit down by me at the bar and I'll explain it. ;) nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

51. You do the same work for youself, or for any employer... and that determines your rights?

If you work for forself you're put up on a pedestral and have all rights and dignity. But if you do the same work for an employer, you're scum and can be cheated at will. Interesting.

So where does that leave subcontractors? They're in a middle zone, so do they get respect or contempt?

This is utter bullshit, the whole way of thinking. It's gibberish dressed up to con the masses into doing harm to themselves. It's a big lie, and those who promote it are liars and con men (gender neutral).

And if people ever wake up, it'll be Marie Antoinette time. And that may be beginning right now as we see in the Middle East - but it's everywhere. The world is beginning to catch on, even here.

[LanternWaste]

54. I think we can safely say "August 25, 2003"

About the same time people began asking inane questions to get attention?

About the same time your performance art became neither art nor performance?

About the same time self-validation became a reason for someone to post on a political board?




Thus, I think we can safely say "August 25, 2003"

[sibelian]

55. Since the beginning of the concept of "employment".

Like the land lived on, like the air breathed, the body lived in and the food eaten. The source of one's well-being cannot be seperated from oneself without a sense of loss. Hence, employment is a possession, just as anything else is a "possession", the sense of loss in its absence being the indicating factor that the entity, physical or conceptual, is "possessed".

[Ikonoklast]

63. When did people think they can 'own' real estate stolen from others?

[Bluebear]

64. FOREIGNER!!! I refuse to do business with you!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7597485

[Little Star]

67. RB, Me thinks just maybe......

you've lived in Texas to long. Thats some RW talking point/thinking you got going on there. Come into the light.:P

[NuclearDem]

69. When I gave three years of my life and risked my own personal safety