I’m a member of a union that includes both office and field workers. It works well for all the big, common negotiations. We all want better wages, healthcare, retirement, hours, etc. But when it comes to working conditions, we have clear differences. The most recent example of “return to work” shines a light on this.
The field workers, understandably, don’t give a shit about “return to work”. Some even resent the office workers for having the ability to work from home. Meanwhile, some office workers will likely quit without the ability to work from home. My company has recently decided to completely remove the ability to work from home. In response, the union is completely split on how to react.
How should I approach the internal discussions? I’m hesitant to advocate for pushback because not everyone will benefit. On the other hand, no resistance at all feels like a concession of worker’s rights.
TLDR: Work from home taken away. Should a union pushback?
More good points. And I largely agree with the thrust of your argument:
Blue/white collar, though, do not seem to be relational categories in the same way as proletariat/bourgeois. The two don’t seem to be compatible as they come from distinct systems of thought. Blue/white seems to be bourgeois in the same sense as working class/middle class.
Blue/white collar seem to be defined in relation to the type of work, whether the work is manual/mental. They are fixed, binary categories. As you point out, they can be helpful but they are flawed. This is probably because they’re not dialectical.
Historically, blue collar would have been a rough synonym for working class and white collar would have been a rough synonym for middle class. Workers in the field or factory would wear blue shirts because they would look cleaner even when muddy or oily. Workers in the office could wear white shirts because they weren’t going to get oily or muddy.
This bourgeois approach to class doesn’t have much explanatory power, except as shorthand. Attempts to make them more nuanced will always be limited because they’re fundamentally non-dialectical.
Whereas proletariat/bourgeois are dialectical. Defined in relation to the means of production, we can identify strata within the proletariat. The lower paid proles might shift between prole and lumpen. The higher paid proles might shift between PMC (professional/managerial) and labour aristocrat. These might earn more and have more security than the lowest strata of the ruling class, the petty bourgeois. And some people might be in more than one category.
Blue collar/white collar can be useful. This can be seen in the OP’s post. The type of work can dictate a different culture and different day-to-day interests (distinct from the differences between prole/labour aristocratic interests). But blue/white collar does not map on to dialectical concepts of class.
Additionally, there may be an office worker (white) or a joiner (blue) who has no power in their own workplace (because they’re at the bottom of the ladder) but who is also a landlord or owns stocks and shares, outside work, making them petty bourgeois, indicating that blue/white are not interchangeable or compatible with dialectical concepts of class.
Reducing dialectical concepts of class to a bourgeois binary of blue/white collar will lead to confusion because it strips the nuance from the dialectical categories. This is what makes it difficult to place the plumber who owns a small business. They are 100% blue collar if they’re still on the tools. But this tells us nothing (and is designed to tell us nothing) about their relation to the means of production (i.e. they’re a blue collar boss).
Removed by mod