Posted by dereklane
on October 30, 2009, 7:31 pm, in reply to "Re: so it seems -nm"
Stevo,
You're not making sense:
" Would these strike-breakers be happy if it was the other way round? Hell no!! "
It *is* the other way around. Before starting work, these people had no work at all. What good is solidarity with postmen they've never met and couldn't give a toss about, just as the postmen have never met them either, and don't give a toss about them.
You're making it seem as though the worst done by here are the postmen, and yet, assuming things go to plan, the posties don't just have full time jobs for above minimum pay, they have *better* pay and conditions too.
So again, why should there be any measure of loyalty at all from the people coming into to take the temporary, minimum wage jobs on offer? I can't see it. Maybe romance about how great unions are? Will that pay their rent?
cheers,
Derek
--Previous Message--
: "I'm not *trying* to be difficult,"
:
: You could've fooled me.
:
: "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."
:
: But these strike-breakers aren't naive,
: Derek. They know that they are contributing
: to management plans to ultimately enforce
: job cuts and pay cuts to the postmen. They
: know full well and don't actually seem to
: care. They are putting their own interests
: first and screw the postmen. Would these
: strike-breakers be happy if it was the other
: way round? Hell no!!
:
: They are putting themselves first whether or
: not it costs hundreds of postmen their jobs
: or their benefits.
:
: They are putting themselves first and sod
: the rest....not unlike capitalism really.
:
: Is that OK?? Not in my book, it's not!
:
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: 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: