Posted by Stevo!!
on October 30, 2009, 10:10 pm, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"
"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."
Unions did withhold their labour to support other strikers.....they used to strike "in sympathy. Being as this is now illegal and any union attempting could end up in court and subsequently bankrupted, this rarely happens now.
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?"
OK, Derek...lets try this one. You have been on the council house waiting list for over five years. Then you get an offer from a private landlord for a one-bedroomed flat at an affordable price. You move in and, after a couple of years, you begin to settle down. Then, out of the blue, the private landlord decides to throw you out the flat for someone else who has agreed to pay a bit more rent than you.
You are rendered homeless with nowhere to live but the gentlemen who now rents the flat that you once rented owes no loyalty to you. He needs a flat and he has decided his needs come before yours.
Are you going to do something about it, Derek? After all, he needs the flat too and owes no loyalty to you? Why shouldn't HE have that flat?
You see...I can indulge in tortured logic too, Derek!
"So far I haven't heard any measure of compassion for the strikebreaker. Why not?"
Because people who trample on other people's livelihoods to further their own needs don't deserve any!
"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?"
Because nothing needs re-thinking. Peter Mandelson could probably end the postal strike tomorrow by demanding that management negotiate properly with the CWU without any preconditions. So far, for reasons best known to himself, he hasn't done so! Therefore, striking remains the only real effective weapon working people have.
--Previous Message--
: 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: