721
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
721 points (100.0% liked)
unions
1360 readers
46 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
i have known a not-insignificant amount of people who interepret the word 'unskilled' very literally. there are a lot of meanings these people hide behind the word 'unskilled', and they don't mean 'on-the-job training will suffice', nor are they anywhere near that nice.
a doctor is highly-skilled, not merely skilled. i don't see how describing someone's livelihood as 'unskilled' can be — in any way — a good faith assessment in any constructive capacity.
people can care about more than one thing. i can care about the problematic language of economists while also believing everyone deserves to have their needs met.
You have known a not-insignificant amount of tribalist assholes. They don't mean things when they say words. The natural shape of the universe, in their eyes, is a hierarchy where the bottom half must suffer, and they'll make whatever mouth noises justify that foregone conclusion.
If I gave you all the time in the world to pick a better label and you chose one we both agreed was flawless then those assholes would invent some other stupid reason to make the exact same claim. That's how they think arguments work. That's all they think we're doing. That's all they think there is.
This label can't justify poverty wages, because nothing justifies poverty wages. And if you renamed it, the people trying would keep trying. You have to recognize these assholes and stop taking their arguments seriously. They're not arguments. They're slogans.
If it wasn't 'they're unskilled!' it'd be 'those jobs are for teenagers!' or 'but hamburgers will cost thirty dollars!' or 'robots will do it instead!' and if you try engaging with any of those then you've already lost. These people don't fucking care. Prove them wrong and nothing changes. You have to attack the conclusion, because that's all they have.
i agree with everything you've written here. we don't need a new term. i propose eliminating 'unskilled labour' from our collective vocabulary, because some people who aren't completely far gone would stand to benefit from recognising this term as you put it: a slogan. i'm not saying i expect a huge amount of effort on this front. no campaigns, just awareness.
i don't disagree with what you've written here; i'm disagreeing with your point in the GP, that:
it's a concept that i believe is only useful to the managerial class (and other hierarchists). it isn't constructive in labour organising.
The distinction is literally life and death, sometimes. I don't call it necessary just because I think it's neat.
The most ardent outright anarchists still need to distinguish jobs anyone can kinda do versus jobs with intense risk, impact, and/or time pressure. This is that term. You can pick a different one - but you cannot get rid of the concept, unless you want surgeons and architects who keep saying "oops."
i also want to add that this 'distinction' — of who is easily replaceable — is only useful to certain classes that shouldn't exist. it isn't a term of what jobs can be easily replaced, it's about what people can be easily replaced, and that's unhelpful to the proletariat.
everywhere i've ever lived, 'unskilled labour' was used more as a slur than an economic term.