Pervasive Destruction of Privatization.

Promises of more job opportunities with the neo-liberal practices of privatization “some party leaders would have it that blue- and white-collar workers no longer exist in Bolivia. In this ‘fantasy’ we have all been magically transformed into merchants and our country is one grand and happy marketplace”  (105). This neo-liberal view point of privatization and its promises of advancement, though more jobs have been created and industry has grown, has not developed into fruitation of workers and labors basic human rights. The exploitation of Bolivia’s natural resources from private foreign corporation only further exacerbates the situation of Bolivia being able to determine its own destine, by crippling the government and therefore the population.

            As Privatization has taken root in Bolivia a “new working class” has been established, that has transformed relations between the people and the government but more importantly between the worker and the boss.  This new category of labor relations spurred on by privatization is “almost invisibl[e], Bolivia has been converted into a semi industrial workshop in which workers themselves do not realize their social power and economic importance. Neoliberal reforms have changed the world of work, but thy have not shrunk it. Neoliberalism has, rather, fragmented and transformed the condition of labor” (106). This transformation of labor has resulted in the “ loss of older established rights, such as job security and the eight-hour day,”(107) As labor is cheapened and the understanding of peoples social and economic importance is lost, bosses are able to manipulate employees to increase profit margins in the name of economic growth, which lies at the foundation of neoliberal practices for increased advancement of society. Another result is “the growing predominance of young workers in the workplace willing to accept the bosses’ current requirements,” (107). The conversion of workers compliance has had more dramatic effects than just changing the relationship between the worker and the boss; it has affected the basic traditions of the nations social fabric.

            An inspection of Bolivia’s dynamic social change of the work place can only be comprehended  “by understanding the new methods of workplace management that keep workers separated, [and] the modes of hiring that undermine and destroy hard-won benefits,” (180). The practice of using workers as Flexible tools of advancement to be discarded when no longer in the vested interest of foreign transnational corporations, has created a dire climate for both employed and unemployed workers. This practice while devaluing the labor with less pay, also generates competition between workers. This competition is viewed as “healthy” to a viable free economic system. The case in Bolivia is quite different; the “healthy” state of competition is based on survival, not the advancement of the citizenry and society. The Survival of the citizens in Bolivia has “young workers fit[ting] the bosses’ new requirements of efficiency and submission. Efficiency and obedience are apparently more desired than experience and wisdom” (109). The creation of this undervalued worker, with the loss of worker’s rights has “women workers and child laborers suffer the most, “ (109).

            The argument for the need of a flexible labor force that is being employed by the bosses is rationalized by a cost benefit analysis. “The validity of such arguments, however, has turned out to be false. Since the implementation of the neoliberal model in 1985, the industrial sector has grown significantly, with production accounting for 33 percent of GDP in 2003,” (111). The average work week has risen, minimum wage has decreased by over forty percent, therefore lowering the quality and standard of life for most Bolivians. So the argument the it is not economically feasible and would be imprudent of bosses to supply workers more rights is lost in the numbers. “They [bosses] say things like,’ job security and social benefits signify elevated costs that dampen investment,’ and ‘lower investment impedes the creation of more and better jobs,” (111) and going further to say that profits can not be present in a climate when these sort of social labor rights exist.  But even when these social services don’t exist no knew jobs appear and the standard of living does not improve with “investment” in the country by foreign corporations.  When the “gross volume of production increased by 300 percent” with a smaller work force and technical advances in the country a profit has to be derived, especially when these same industries were creating a profit in their original state. Ones must come to a conclusion that “so called labor costs, which, in practice, are none other than the rights we have had taken away, account for less than 10 percent of the total cost of production, including technical and administrative salaries. Thus the bosses’ argument s for the necessity for flexibilization is a sham,” (113)