Posted by dereklane
on October 30, 2009, 7:54 pm, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"
ethics of "F### You Buddy"
There is no ethical position. The strike breaker, like the majority of workers, work for themselves, and no one else. The postie doesn't withhold his labour because Joe Bloggs has been made redundant from the car industry. And, of course, noone is asking him to. So the 'f### you buddy' concept could equally go the other way. Why doesn't it? Surely what's good for goose? Why when a union is involved are we allowed the right to get sanctimonious about *this* job? Could you explain that, because it doesn't make any sense from where I sit.
"Strikebreaking" is good for nobody - "strikebreaker" included. It undermines the life and well being of everyone who has to sell their labour.
How? For much of the country which is not part of a union, how does strikebreaking affect them one way or another? Surely legislative changes from direct activism is more key to ensuring good working conditions than qualitative, one by one, case by case union representation? And, even if you say not, if the strikebreaker is not in a union (because previously they were *unemployed*), then surely any work is better than none if they get much needed money to pay the bills? Or is it better that they stay true to a union to which they *don't* belong, and lose the contents of their house (and their house, maybe) in the process?
How do you justify this perspective, aside from union jingoism? So far I haven't heard any measure of compassion for the strikebreaker. Why not? Is there a conceivable circumstance where these people would take minimum wage temporary work just for the hell of it? I can't see it. Surely we can be grown up enough to admit that unions can be very useful, may be integral, but that a lot of their processes are outdated (precisely because of changes form Thatcher perhaps) and desperately need good minds rethinking them?
cheers,
Derek
Responses: