Posted by dereklane
on October 31, 2009, 12:20 am, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"
"I disagree with Derek's support for strikebreakers, tough as their life maybe. If the Posty's had not gone on strike they ( the strikebreakers) would not have had the opportunity to earn an extra few pounds anyway"
Hi Rob,
That's not quite true. They were going to be employed, as I understand, for the Christmas season already. No doubt, if they rejected the early call to work, they would have also had to reject the full 6 (or whatever) week employment. That's a hell of a big ask to dump at the door of a person most likely already impoverished by unemployment. And, the motivation is unlikely to be just for ' a few *extra* pounds. You might consider it small pennies, if you're reasonable well off.
For many, its likely this is their *only* work in a while. After all, who works for minimum wage in temporary jobs except those who *really* need the money. It's not just a question of 'well, do I really need it?'. For a lot of people, the answer is a resounding YES. Mail sorting is probably one of the few jobs that can be done by relatively unskilled people. I know in my previous job, all the mail sorters were english 2nd language. Some of these people are seriously desperate, and I doubt the landlord will go 'Good on you mate' when you don't supply the rent. I should point out here, this is a scenario, not the fact. I have no idea of the facts, nor do, I think, any of us. But it isn't good to ignore the plight of one bunch of ordinary people in favour of those on the tier above.
What I'm supporting is the person, not the act of breaking a strike. That's act is unfortunate, of course, but it happens easily because circumstance of capitalism and the framework of union protest allows it. It amazes me the union are so shocked (and angry) every time it does happen. If people are poor and hurting, morals or ethics often take a back seat. I'm not going to sit here and condemn people for it, because I've been uncomfortable enough before to at least understand where they'd be coming from. Take a look at why so much of the US military is made of of black Americans if you want further evidence of that. Its not necessarily the case that they fight because their mothers didn't raise them right. Desperation can be a hard thing to face. At that stage, the 'screw you' probably goes to the whole society from such people (so it unlikely you'll get solidarity, anyway, and why should you expect it? Not everyone is political, or an activist, or follows the same ethical ideals). Saying 'don't you care about unions?' to such people isn't really productive. You have to, if you're serious, address *their* problems before you're likely to get them onside. That's kind of the basis of a compassionate stance. Rather than jumping on a bandwagon to hate one more of our ranks (just people, ordinary people), we should focus that blame in the right directions. Strike-breakers are a symptom of a union failure, not the cause.
And everyone deserves compassion, every person. In this situation, the institutions (company, govt and union) are the parties on which to heap blame, if there is blame to heap. The Union for persisting with style which loses more battles than it wins (these days), and the other two for not giving the basic demands (which I imagine are probably eminently reasonable).
cheers,
Derek
Responses: