13th Amendment - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ....... shall exist within the US.

[Union Yes]

Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



What does this mean for Serf or below poverty wages? - the service based economy.

When a company like Walmart profits immensly(BILLIONS) off the back of their low paid workforce,
to me, this is a form of slavery. Grueling work, refusal to pay benefits to many of it's workers, and forced to sit through anti-union/union-busting propaganda.

If anyone thinks work at Walmart isn't grueling, think of that 65 year old lady 'team member' with arthritis in both wrists that is running the checkout with 12 people w/full shopping carts who has to check out each item and lug it across that price scanner.

Do that for 8 hours and tell me it isn't grueling.

Involuntary servitude- When SERFitude is forced upon us, by way of the service based economy, given the enormous cost of living, rent, mortgage, food, utilities, education, HC, when it's a workers only option, it's hardly "voluntary".

[SoCalNative]

1. Working for Walmart isn't mandatory

and I refuse to believe it would ever be a worker's "only option" as far as a job goes.

I would starve and live in a cave before I ever took a job with them.

[Romulox]

4. Neither was indentured servitude. Not really an argument in favor. nt

[onenote]

9. indentured servitude involved a contractual obligation

I'm pretty sure most wal-mart employees can quit their jobs and not be in breach of any contractual obligation.

involuntary servitude is generally understood to involve some sort of coerced service.

[Romulox]

12. It's actually more precise to say that they have a contract with an at will term

Every time you enter into any financial transaction, you've entered into a contract.

[Romulox]

19. One other thing, an indentured service contract can't be enforced today...

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the signing of any contract.

So the question simply cannot turn on the issue of either contracts or "coercion" as you present it.

[anonymous171]

6. Have you ever actually gone more than a couple hours without food?

Or lived without shelter for a couple of days? It's not fun you know.

[Romulox]

2. The next big wave is forcing taxpayers to buy private products

Arguably this is a practice barred by the 13th Amendment, but I'm sure some Constitutional magic will be discovered to make it all work (let's just say the ICC.)

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. The next big wave is forcing taxpayers to buy private products

Like mandatory insurance for example.

[anonymous171]

3. Service economy = Economy where the poor are forced to serve the rich in order to survive

It's a very demeaning system.

[HeresyLives]

11. Doctors and lawyers are part of the service economy.

It just means you don't manufacture a product, you provide a service.

[Romulox]

20. There are orders of magnitude more retail clerks than doctors in this economy though. nt

[hughee99]

5. People familiar with actual slavery

would find this argument ridiculous. Having said that, I agree with your portrayal of the situation (low wages, no benefits, etc...) right up until you equated it to slavery or even involuntary servitude.

I agree that this situation is not acceptable, but it's not slavery, either.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. +1 - hyperbole rarely wins a debate. (nt)

[Romulox]

18. Actually, it's YOUR argument that's off-base.

The 13th Amendment is cited, for example, to establish that courts are prohibited from forcing performance of personal service contracts--for a court to force you to show up at work is considered "involuntary servitude".

So the 13th Amendment does not have a "must be bad as 18th century slavery!" clause--it applies to our day to day lives. :hi:

[hughee99]

23. It's MY argument that's off base?

I'm arguing that working at Walmart sucks, and is unfair, but it's neither involuntary servitude or slavery. If that were the case, you'd expect that they'd have almost no turnover, but the turnover at Walmart is quite high. After all, slaves weren't allowed to go work at the competing place across the street, nor were they allowed to call in sick with a hangover (or just not show up at all).

I'm not arguing that it's not slavery because it's not as bad as it more than 100 years ago in the US, I'm arguing that it's not slavery at all.

There are many good arguments why something needs to be done about this situation, but you know how to make a really bad one, EQUATE IT TO SOMETHING FAR WORSE.

here's an example... "The Nazi at the movie theater asked me to turn off my cell phone".

[Romulox]

26. I'm not arguing what WM does is "involuntary servitude"--I'm saying your argument against

was off base. Those are two different things. I'm just trying to let you know that the threshold isn't something ridiculous like "it's not slavery unless they cut off your foot and take away your baby!" as I read on a similar thread yesterday.

Perhaps that's not what *you* meant to do, but a few others are taking just this tack in this thread. :shrug:

[hughee99]

28. I agree,

just because there's not daily floggings doesn't mean its not forced labor of some sort, but just because the pay and benefits suck and the options for other workers are limited doesn't make it slavery or involuntary servitude either.

[Romulox]

32. Also agree. I apologize for saying your argument was off base

Though I stand by my reasoning, I don't think it contradicts your point. Sorry for the confusion.

[Hannah Bell]

22. slaves used to run the government in turkey. slavery doesn't necessarily

= gruel & whippings.

[hughee99]

24. Yes, but it usually means someone doesn't have the option to leave,

and the turnover rate at Walmart is quite high.

[Romulox]

27. Right. But that is NOT the legal definition of "involuntary servitude"

as I've been trying to tell ya... :shrug:

[hughee99]

30. Here's the legal definition of involuntary servitude...

"A condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

In considering whether service or labor was performed by someone against his will or involuntarily, it makes no difference that the person may have initially agreed, voluntarily, to render the service or perform the work. If a person willingly begins work but later desires to withdraw and is then forced to remain and perform work against his will, his service becomes involuntary. Also, whether a person is paid a salary or a wage is not determinative of the question as to whether that person has been held in involuntary servitude. In other words, if a person is forced to labor against his will, his service is involuntary even though he is paid for his work."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i071.htm

And I don't see how this describes working at Walmart. It sounds very much like what I stated. They have the option to leave, and many do.

Interestingly, a persons compensation (or lack thereof) is irrelevant with respect to involuntary servitude.

[Romulox]

35. That definition is not the appropriate one for 13th Amendment analysis...

As mentioned above, a civil court compelling specific performance of a personal service contract has been held to constitute "involuntary servitude" for purposes of the 13th Amendment.

That's a completely different standard than the one you've cited from the criminal code. The 13th Amendment naturally involves Constitutional construction. :hi:

[Fresh_Start]

7. sadly the constitution doesn't save poverty or homelessness

shall not exist.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

[hfojvt]

8. grueling work? At wal-mart?

it's retail, not coal mining or roofing or working on a garbage truck. Try to imagine that 65 year old lady up on a roof slopping tar or carrying packs of shingles.

Plus, Wal-mart pays more than minimum wage. And try this experiment once. Take their profits and divide it by their workforce and see how much more they could pay if they made zero profits. I would be surprised if it is more than $1 an hour.

[ParkieDem]

16. You're precisely right.

Working at Wal-Mart may not be fun; you're on your feet the whole day and if you're a stocker, you're lifting heavy things all day. But compared to a coal miner, steel mill worker, farmer, etc., it's really nothing.

I think that's one reason why people aren't "rioting in the streets" like so many DUers ask. Things are bad now, no doubt, but even the poor among us generally have decent shelter, a somewhat reliable source of food, and relative comfort. Lots more people will have to be deprived of the bare essentials before people are really ready for a revolution.

[hfojvt]

21. ouch and I forgot meat-packing and foundry work

not to mention hanging and un-hanging things from a line. I did a job like that for six days and it was brutal. And I wasn't the only wimp who thought so. Three of us started on Sunday night, and by Wednesday I was the only one left.

[quinnox]

13. This thread reminds me of the "desecration" one

The one where people are calling for the death penalty for a freakin cross being placed by someone.

Come on, this is stretching these terms to the breaking point and beyond. No one is forced to take a job with Wal Mart. There are tons of low wage jobs out there and if you have to take one you can find better ones than at Wal Mart.

Sometimes those on the left use too much exaggeration and ultra sensitivity to the point of absurdity.

[anonymous171]

14. Read the last sentence. When the choice is between starvation and working for low wages

it's not really a choice at all.

[Rebubula]

15. Unrec...

...for silliness and hyperbole.


Anyway, the people that work at WalMart are Rich when compared to world standards of poverty.

[ParkieDem]

37. Yep.

No doubt it's difficult to be poor in this country, but our notions of poverty and those of most of the people of the world are very, very different.

[leftstreet]

17. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Posteritatis]

29. Unrec for hyperbole. (nt)

[Union Yes]

31. So was the notion of corporate personhood, at one time. nt

[Posteritatis]

34. Hasn't been for generations. (nt)

[izzybeans]

36. You may want to clearly spell out what you mean. You seem to be talking about "wage slavery".

Which really just means that working for wages is another form of dependence. We have a choice of being dependent on one employer or another for our livelihoods. If freedom is a sliding scale than chattel slavery sits near the bottom and wage dependence about half way up.

Rightwingers complain about people being dependent upon the government for welfare, but never consider how dependent they are on their masters in business. Our employment really isn't a truly open choice. We can be fired with no cause.Democratize the workplace and our wages will produce more independence.