Talk:Truck wages

Old talk

This not exactly the most dispassionate discussion on the topic. Regardless of what modern day opinion is of such a system, I think it would be more appropriate to split the article into two sections: one describing the economic structure of a truck system, and a second to discuss the abuses and criticism of the system and the history of its diminishment. As it stands, it mixes criticism and description too much.

Hi. To state the facts about something is not "dispassionate" or "criticism". If so then concentration camp and HIV are also problematic, and a truck system by definition is exploitative, as you will discover if you have look at the literature on the subject, such as George Hilton's definitive work, The Truck System, including a History of the British Truck Acts, 1465-1960. (Cambridge, UK: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd, 1960.) A description of the "economic structure" should go at truck wages, since there is a difference between the payment of wages in a non-cash form, which is not necessarily exploitative, and a truck system (in the strict sense).Grant65 (Talk) 00:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Truck systems and company stores are sometimes identified with debt bondage, although the latter works through advances on wages; by contrast, truck systems exploit workers and their families by controlling consumption of essential items, such as food and accommodation." Who wrote this, Karl Marx? Just because you can quote people who wrote literature and agree with you on the subject doesn't mean it's not POV to declare the truck system "exploitative." If a worker and the employer voluntarily agree on such a system, many people would disagree that this is a system that exploits workers. This is blatantly POV and it should be fixed.

Furthermore, to define truck systems as "unfree labour" doesn't really fit the definition, which is forced labor. Now, of course, socialists argue that such systems are unfree and exploit workers, but this is one of those fundamental points where socialism and capitalism clash. Therefore, a statement representing one side has no place in a Wikipedia article. Aplomado 21:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comments at talk:unfree labour. Grant65 | Talk 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to ignore other viewpoints of truck systems in favor of one in particular, then fine, I'm putting up a disputed tag. Are you honestly going to deny that there are many scholars who disagree with the "exploitative" nature of truck systems?

Yes I am. As does everyone who has ever written on it. You clearly are not very familiar with the literature on truck systems. If it isn't exploitative it simply isn't a truck system, i.e. it's payment in kind, or truck wages, or barter or whatever you want to call it. The terminology is confusing, I agree, but that is what a truck system per se is and that is why governments throughout the western world introduced legislation to outlaw them. Grant65 | Talk 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how barter or "truck wages" are exploitative. You simply assume this to be true. If you want to quote scholars reasoning for this, fine. But as you said, it is confusing and it doesn't need to be. For example, Meriam-Webster merely defines a truck system as "the system of paying wages in goods instead of cash." I don't see "exploitation" as necessarily part of the definition. Instead of being condescending to your critics, make an effort to write a clear and fair article that addresses these concerns. Aplomado 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm re-adding the disputed tag until this "exploitation by definition" nonsense is resolved. Any significant reading of material on the company towns of the early 1900s will at the very least reveal this to be a disputed issue. Aplomado 03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Condescending? Don't be so rude. Since you raised your concerns — in an insulting and abrasive fashion — I have been attempting to rewrite to emphasise the academic usage of "truck system".

I would invite you to try a rewrite, but I don't think you know enough about the subject; you clearly haven't touched the relevant literature and you're still having trouble with the semantics.

For example, I never said that barter was exploitative. It generally isn't. However a truck system, per se is a form or subset of barter or truck which is exploitative. Some historians argue about the extent/limits of said exploitation in particular cases, but that's it.

Meriam-Webster is a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia. Any dictionary definition of commonly used terms is probably going to be inadequate compared to what we do. If we simply adopted literal, dictionary definitions of words/terms then there would be no Wikipedia.

I challenge you to find me a quotation from the historical literature that defines a truck system (not truck wages or any similar term) as simply payment in goods. The definitions all include exploitation and/or unfree labour.

Another example of your problem with semantics: a company town in 1906 or 2006 does not necessarily entail a truck system or exploitation. There are still plenty of company towns in the world. The article is about truck systems not company towns. Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Grant, I invited you to explain how "truck systems" are exploitative by definition. I'm having trouble seeing how you can back up such a statement. A "truck system" is not necessarily exploitative. Most of the literature I've read on such systems speak of "company towns" in which employees are paid in a form of credit that can be redeemed in a company store. Of course they could be paid in cash, but they live in an isolated town where cash is of little value. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to demonstrate that company stores and truck systems fit into the narrow and inflammatory category of "exploitative," and not simply a system in which it is most convenient for such rural towns to operate. Aplomado 07:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aplomado, can you explain why think you insist on referring only to the company store scenario, when that was only one example of a truck system? I have already given one illustration of how another kind of truck worked.

If the word "exploitative" is the main problem for you, then I think it's going to be difficult to provide any fuller description of the workings of truck systems which you would find agreeable, since you have seem to trouble conceiving of the radically different ways in which workplaces have operated in the past and continue to operate in some countries even now.

Instead of just leaving a NPOV template, why don't you try writing your own version, as you did at unfree labour. Be bold, that's what we're here for. Grant65 | Talk 12:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Scrip

How does one propse that this page be merged with scrip? Jimworm 01:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

They are realted but separate things, so I would be opposed to any merger.Grant65 (Talk) 13:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this sentence true?: While this system had long existed in many parts of the world, it became widespread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as industrialization left many poor, unskilled workers without other means to support themselves and their families. I thought industrialization put unskilled workers and children to work leaving skilled workers with less opportunities. And I suspect as harsh as that sounds it was still in improvement on lifestyle for the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.83.46 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfree labor

By definition, unfree labor is labor under forced coercion. "exploative labor" is not the same as "unfree labor". In socialist theories, all labor in capitalist society is exploative to a degree. I am moving to replace this category as unsupported by the text of the article. `'mikka 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed a link to History of unfree labor in the United States. If someone wants to link to unfree labor would be fine, although I haven't checked the unfree labor main entry. This particular article (unfree labor in the untied states) needs to be edited for NPOV and needs some fact checking and citation work. It's not of use to link it to this entry. Gogogoat (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

truck system in newfoundland

there are some materials in william warrender mackenzie's report. Miriam Wright said it persisted into the mid of 20th ceturay. Jackzhp 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Company store vs. Truck system

What is the main difference between truck system and company store? Madd the sane (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a slightly better article stub

I hope this is more straightforward than what it replaces; it still needs a lot of work. The previous stub seemed too abstractly ideological (my POV, anyway) and unusefully unfocused. Also, the lyrics to "16 tons" don't belong here. Added the Law and Economics banners on the talk page (seemed appropriate). Provided some usable (and accessible) references, for a potential starting point. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'm leaving this on the talk page instead of tagging myself since I'm not an expert, but this article might need NPOV help...the opening sentence, "A truck system is where a predatory employer coerces..." etc etc. EagleFalconn (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is to distinguish it from a legitimate barter or payment-in-kind system, which is explained later on in the article stub. The truck system is only the predatory practice, which has been outlawed, and including the word predatory is intended to make the distinction clear. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was loaded with an obvious editorial POV. I've edit the article to describe the practice (including the fact that it's considered exploitative and illegal) rather than to denounce it. If described adequately, the editorial denunciation of it is unnecessary (cf. WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves). - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, there was some good NPOV material in an earlier version of it, which could be reincorporated into the article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jason, while you are entitled to your opinion (one that seems shared by others, for whatever reason), your reaction to the wording of the article is itself "loaded with POV" (to use your own phrasing). However, reasonable people may disagree. For an example of what one might conside "loaded with POV", see your comment above favoring a description of "considered exploitative and illegal". Something is illegal or it is not: to say it is "considered illegal" is weasel-wording, IMHO.

I suggest emphatically that when you make inflamatory accusations and change an article, you cite your references, which I took pains to do, and which you did not - how is that different than injecting your own personal point of view, unsupported by credible references? If you have any references, I would be interested in hearing them. If you are interested in the topic, then perhaps start with the references that I provided, which include legal opinions.

For the article itself: the essence of the truck system is a conscious decision by the employer to prey on the employee — ie, evil intent. This is not a denunciation: it is the definition (as exemplified by the laws and acts that have outlawed it). Also, it does not apply to employers who do not prey on employees in the use of barter and payment-in-kind systems (as the article made clear until you changed it, and which were sometimes necessary, and which were common among the poor, who had to trade on barter and PIK because they had no money). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Considered exploitative" and "illegal" were intended to be read as two different clauses; I apologize if that wasn't clear enough. You'll note that I didn't use that phrase in the article itself, so your criticism of it and my comments on this talk page as POV is not particularly relevant; I'm allowed to express an opinion about the article. I was simply suggesting "widely illegal and considered exploitative" (is that clearer?) as a thematic approach, one that is (as Wikipedia policy requires) utterly neutral and merely describes how other people characterize the subject, not my own assessment of it. There is no debate over the fact that it is widely considered exploitative and predatory. Nor is there debate about the fact that is is widely (but not universally) illegal. (Unless there is a planetwide legislature I'm unfamiliar with, we cannot simply state that it's been "outlawed". That's geographic bias and contrary to WP policy as an international encyclopedia.) Those two facts are what the article should state. The conclusion that it is exploitative and predatory does not belong here. The fact that more than one other editor has objected to the argumentative and judgmental tone of this article should give you pause to consider that... maybe they have a point.

You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that (for example) an article about Hitler needs to say that he was evil; it does not. It merely needs to describe what he did, and report the fact that lots of people have described that as "evil". Read WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves please; it's a core WP policy and every editor should be familiar with it. If we don't need to call Hitler "evil", surely we can manage to describe a truck system without resorting to epithets such as "predatory".

Your statement that the article no longer distinguishes between barter/in-kind arrangements and truck systems is incorrect; please reread the article. I did remove the word "honest" in the description of barter systems, which is precisely the kind of value judgment that Wikipedia is not permitted to make. Instead we should describe how they are different in operation, not in morality or ethics.

By the way, I added no references because I added no new substantial information; I merely removed or rephrased the material which reduced the article's credibility by making it polemic rather than encyclopedic.

P.S. I happen to agree that truck systems are exploitative and predatory, and ought to be illegal everywhere, so please dismiss any notion that we're in disagreement about the subject; we are in disagreement about how to write about it. For my part, I like the approach consistent with WP policy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Company Store NOT a truck System

Folks, A company store is also a defining structure in a coal camp and basically help the camp become a town. It is a fact that yes, the employee did not have another place to spend their earnings. However, in the case of Appalachian Company towns and Coal towns, THERE WERE NO OTHER PLACES FOR AT LEAST A DECADE. We MUST avoid POV and politics if wewant to have an encyclopedia. Cant we define something before we imbue it meanings that may or may NOT be valid?????Coal town guy (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry shop in the Britain section

I am deleting A Tom and Jerry shop is a low-drinking room from the end of the Brewer quotation in the Britain section: There does not seem to be any (evidence of a) connection between the truck system and tommy shops on the one hand and Tom and Jerry shops on the other.

Frans Fowler (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)