Trés Cheap

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (6)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Just out of curiosity…  have Swedish media been contacted re: H&M’s unwillingness?  In my opinion, being a former resident of Sweden, the most effective way of dealing with H&M would be to publicise the story in Aftonbladet (http://www.aftonbladet.se) or Dagens Nyheter (http://www.dn.se) - the two largest newspapers in Sweden. 

  The last thing H&M would want, would be to have their precious image tarnished on the home market…

  Posted by Lech Linkiel on Oct 9, 2003 at 7:09 AM

  So what’s going on here?

  the union is attempting to encourage the workers to form a union through proselytizing.

  The company is attempting to discourage the same in the same way.

  What is wrong with that?

  Posted by Nus on Oct 31, 2003 at 8:01 PM

  The problem with employers discouraging unions is that employers have tremendous leverage over their workers. Workers can be easily intimidated because their livelihoods depend on their employers. Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically, but in the absense of that we need absolute neutrality on the part of the owners re: whether workers should join unions.

  Posted by Jake Werner on Nov 3, 2003 at 8:20 PM

  “Seems to me that all business should be worker-owned and controlled democratically”

  Why does this seem to be the right thing to you?

  How can workers own a business that requires 100s of millions of dollars in investments which are currently obtained through stockholder ownership?

  Have you any examples of such a practice ever working?

  Posted by Nus on Nov 3, 2003 at 9:12 PM

  First, because people should always have a say over the decisions that affect them. If we believe in democracy in politics, the same should hold for our work lives.

  Second, because democratic businesses are much more likely to provide fulfilling employment, adequate compensation, and an enjoyable work environment.

  Third, because removing profit as the ultimate arbiter of business decisions allows you take into account the effects that business has on the community, the environment, and other workers.

  Fourth, because democratic businesses are more efficient. Instead of the waste produced by alienated workers and conflict between management and employees, they have workers with a real stake in the business. Sociological studies back this up.

  A democratic economy would require much smaller businesses, but the economies of scale that are lost would be much less once you factored in the massive negative externalities that are part of the current system.

  Posted by Jake Werner on Nov 20, 2003 at 5:52 PM

  please boycot this company all together.

  Posted by lisa-marie on Dec 25, 2003 at 4:02 AM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by David Moberg

• Out of Control
  Too big to regulate, the banks need to be broken up.
• Labor’s New Leader
  The AFL-CIO stakes its future on Richard Trumka.
• The Retail Devolution
  Two new books explore corporate evil.
• Who’s Got the Power?
  Progressives find themselves outmaneuvered on healthcare reform.
• Not Your Parents’ Labor Movement
  Why the Republic sit-in failed to inspire other worker actions.
• Solidarity Reunited?
  Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.