(Picture credit: Counterpunch)
In this article Julie Wark and Daniel Raventós write about why the trade unions do not support an unconditional basic income when “properly understood and administered, basic income could have enormously positive consequences”.
Prior to their discussion of the reasons why trade unions do not support an unconditional basic income, they first try to assess both the normative and the practical questions that must be answered when it comes to speaking about the unconditional basic income.
It is also analyzed the right-wing and left-wing unconditional basic income supporters.
Finally, Their discussion is comprised of a point by point response to the six arguments most often raised by unionists when opposing basic income and after discussing them the article is finishes by saying that unionists “also raise basic issues about what kind of society we should and might be able to have because the underlying human rights concerns are always the same and they affect everybody: freedom, justice and dignity”.
Daniel Raventós is a lecturer in Economics at the University of Barcelona and author inter alia of Basic Income: The Material Conditions of Freedom (Pluto Press, 2007). He is on the editorial board of the international political review Sin Permiso.
Julie Wark is an advisory board member of the international political review Sin Permiso. Her last book is The Human Rights Manifesto (Zero Books, 2013).
More articles by Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark, here.
Read the original article:
Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark, “Why don’t Trade Unions support an Unconditional Basic Income (precisely when they should)?”, Counterpunch, January 11th, 2017