Posted by dereklane
on October 31, 2009, 12:01 am, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"
Hi Stevo,
That isn't tortured logic, it's perfectly legitimate. If you accept the capitalist framework, you end up needing to work within that (and losing).
Unions are part of that - they are not working outside of it, but in it.
So, when the capitalist machine drags in more workers, they really can't complain, at least past the grumble that this is to be expected. But its to be expected *from the corporate machine*, and therefore, the blame - all of the blame - should rest, again, with that corporate machine. Not with the bloke at the bottom (hierarchically lower) than even the blokes in the union.
Your point is consistent with mine.
BTW, I and my family were in exactly th situation you describe. No council house ever came up, of course, so there were 2 options.
1. I could follow the system, allow my family to go homeless so that the system got a move on and got my family into a home.
Unfortunately, that option means putting my family (we're talking about kids here) out of a home, and into b&bs and bedsits until a house arrives. With far too many tenancies since each of them were born (being moved on at a whim), I wasn't prepared to put them through more of this drama (and it *is* drama to a 4 year old, really serious stuff, stuff which causes regressive behavioural problems and the like). Of course, lots of people are suffering the same situation, which is why, if anyone get get that measure of normality they need to keep things on an even keel for just a little longer, I won't deny them it. That includes people working for temporary and minimum wage *outside* of unions.
Anyway, my 'solution' was to plunge head first into a 100% mortgage, because, I reasoned, if I can keep it, even for a few years, its a few years the kids get some stability.
Unions won't protect against this sort of stuff, not in their present guise, at least. What we need, rather than attempting to build inside the current framework, is to start again entirely. It will probably include the need for unions, but in the new model, *they* would need the checks and balances (because even unions can get corrupted).
"Because people who trample on other people's livelihoods to further their own needs don't deserve any!"
Right, so no compassion for Palestinians who resort to such desperate measures as taking up a gun to fight Israeli tanks and soldiers. No compassion for the Aboriginal kid who gets imprisoned for stealing from a shop in the NT in Australia, because he is hungry (it destroys livelihoods, after all, if everyone is theiving).
Stevo, your attitude here is a little warped from your passion for union workers, I think. Let's have a think about this strik breaker. So far as I am aware, these jobs were promised before the strike (the reason they were able to get so many in so fast). That was for the lead up to christmas, as usually happens. So the union *knows* these people are cynically employed on a short term, low pay basis, and yet (I guess) don't do anything to improve their lot, even though its the same industry.
And, when RM says 'you need to come in early' either they come in early, to replace the strikers, or they lose potentially 6 weeks of work, because, without any rights or permanent contract, its unlikely RM are going to stand even for limited dissent amongst their casual staff.
But, aside from that, you are talking about people who have had their rights trampled (the right to even income to feed family and pay bills). We can assume this, because people don't take minimum wage in temporary positions except if they are desperate. It just doesn't happen.
There is a good chance a lot of them are immigrants, or foreign workers. People who systematically have their rights trampled every day just by virtue of being here. And yet, you're telling me *they* are the offenders. I have to say, I'd hate to be a strike breaker in front of you in the picket line. This level of uncompassionate finger pointing at scape goats (not the company, not the union, but some powerless poor bloke looking for an income over christmas) isn't conducive to anything positive at the picket line, I would say.
"Because nothing needs re-thinking."
Well, there's a progressive view point! I'll point it out again. If there is this gaping hole in strike logic (the surplus workers desperate for a wage), how does it not require a rethink? Is it satisfactory to you that the only means of dealing with this hole is by bullying and intimidation (by the use of logic that puts the union workers over these other workers in terms of importance)? If it is, then I guess we've come to the end of a road. I can't condone any attitude (or any union supporter) who refuses basic compassion for his fellow man/woman, if they're unfortunate enough to exist outside the framework of a union or permanent employment.
"Peter Mandelson could probably end the postal strike tomorrow by demanding that management negotiate properly with the CWU without any preconditions."
Absolutely right. So the blame is squarely on the shoulders of either
a) the government or
b) RM
or a combination. *Not* the strike breaker.
Derek
Responses: