Posted by dereklane
on October 30, 2009, 6:36 pm, in reply to "Re: so it seems -nm"
That's fair enough JohnLilburne,
But I'm just trying to get my head around it; for strikebreakers (the people taking on unaffiliated minimum wage jobs), what circumstance might arise for someone to do that who isn't desperate? Can you think of any? If so, could you suggest them to me.
I'm not *trying* to be difficult, I just can't see anyone taking on minimum work with such a hostile undertone just to spite the union (or whatever other non-desperate reason).
How the media portray things is going to be predictably pro-establishment, and anti-union. We know that, but to accept that doesn't mean we should accept that the union, or systemic issues surrounding unions, at least, are faultless (I know you aren't suggesting it).
But I still at heart object to scapegoating the strikebreaker, particularly when the scenario appears to be Person-with-Job tells person-without-job to back off, unless of course we can prove something otherwise nefarious about all these strike breakers, or, to frame them another way, minimum pay workers.
I'll admit its a contentious issue with problems at this level (how can a strike be effective if there's ready labour to fill a gap?). In which case, maybe its time for a rethink on *how* to strike that doesn't create a lower tier scapegoat. Like, maybe striking *at* work, *in* the sorting office, *at* your desk. Shift no post, but conscientiously object to working whilst there. It creates a problem for management, because you'd have to bring in the heavies to forcibly evict your own staff, to make room for the new staff. I'd imagine that would have all sorts of complications that standing out the front of the sorting office doesn't.
No doubt there are problems with this approach I haven't thought of, but then, what are unions for if not to come up with something more ingenious than what they've been doing for a couple of hundred years that will actually work?
cheers,
Derek
Responses: