March 31, 2009
Blasted post titling convention, more trouble than its worth. Anyhow, thought struck me just before bed, want to type it out.
Thompson, moral economy, doesn’t need to stay w/ only bread riots and peasants.
http://www.zyworld.com/albionmagazineonline/books11_classics__of_englishness3.htm
http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Moral_Economy
There was a moral economy in the early 20th century around injury lawsuits. Injured workers and the people on juries had one set of ideas, judges another, and employers another. The courtroom served as a point of mediation between workers and the state, and through the state with the economy. Complaints over juries and their awards were an objection to this moral economy, and the reforms involved in workers comp stripped that moral economy of the lawmaking (and through law, properly economic) power/potential it had had under the common law. Think more on this; make a reading list on the moral economy stuff.
March 29, 2009
It got fatig’d, I guess. (more…)
March 25, 2009
We went to another prenatal class the other night. Those things are awesome. (more…)
March 23, 2009
Matt has asked me about this, (more…)
March 22, 2009
I’ve been invited by some people I like very much to give a talk on the theme of the common, a philosophical category (or a family or cloud of categories sharing a name) used by some contemporary Italian writers and folk influenced by them. I’m flattered at the invite and happy to have a chance to get my thoughts clearer on this by writing something up. On the other hand, that category is one that I’ve never found very useful even when I was really enamored of that work, which I’m not any more. So I feel a bit nervous (more than usual) about this as I’ve got find a way to question the utility of the category as used while addressing the work that the category does or could do, in such a way that my questions and criticisms can actually be heard. I’ll be blogging to prepare for this. (more…)
March 20, 2009
Between 1910 and 1921 forty two of the forty eight U.S. states passed Workmen’s Compensation legislation in response to a widespread perception that the United States was in the grip of an epidemic of workplace accidents. The epidemic of workplace accidents generated two phenomena which concerned policymakers and lobbyists: injured workers and lawsuits. Workplace accidents left many workers disabled and unable to find work, thus simultaneously increasing the burdens of these workers and their families while reducing their income prospects. Policymakers and lobbyists generally perceived lawsuits in response to workplace injuries as part of the problem. They saw lawsuits as creating greater conflict between employers and employees due to the adversarial nature of trials, as not providing compensation to injured workers at an adequate level or speed, and as costing a great deal of money. As a result, Workmen’s Compensation laws channeled claims by injured workers out of courtrooms and into commissions which sought to process injury claims in a manner which removed questions of fault, paid injured workers more quickly, and lowered costs per claim.
Workmen’s Compensation laws, as the name suggests, were written with men in mind. It appears that injured women may have fared better than men did under the common law system of handling workplace injuries. All male juries appear to have issued verdicts in favor of I injured women workers more often than injured men and to have awarded injured women higher damages. It also appears that the creation of Workmen’s Compensation in Wisconsin may have put the jobs of disabled workers at risk. In cases of injury employees were allowed compensation based on their level of capacity or incapacity after injury. This meant that compensation was not based on injury but based on the post-injury condition, so that a one armed worker who lost an arm would be compensated the same as a two armed worker who lost both arms. As a result, some employers appear to have become more hesitant to hire already disabled workers, viewing these workers as a greater financial risk to employ.
March 17, 2009
I really should be doing many other things. Instead I’m watching Harvey’s lectures on Capital v1. Currently watching, or at least listening to, the introduction. (This reminds me - I think I’m going to pitch the next Marx reading group like it’s sort of a 12 step program, like a “Not Having Read Volume One Of Capital Anonymous.”) I really like it so far.
(more…)
