Posted by dereklane on October 30, 2009, 6:36 pm, in reply to "Re: so it seems -nm"

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

 Post a Response

Posted by Just John on October 31, 2009, 1:42 am, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"

Derek, what do you suggest the union do? Let their members be shafted? I have to admit I am struggling to grasp your thrust here.

 Post a Response

Posted by dereklane on October 31, 2009, 12:48 pm, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"

I think I said earlier, I'm not in any unions. Neither, in case you're wondering, am I an employer. So, no, I've not been to a union meeting lately. Are you telling me they *are* doing stuff to improve the lot of the unemployed, and make sure they're comfortable enough not to take work when it conflicts with union interests? If so, that's interesting. I would like to hear more, if you're able to offer it. You say:'Is that any wonder?' Well, no it doesn't surprise me, if that's what you mean. When terminology such as scab (and other derogatory terms designed to be spat)exist and are encouraged, the threat of violence is never all that far off. Despite Stevo's assertions that all that stuff was left back in the eighties, you can tell just by imploring people to spare a thought of compassion for the circumstances behind the strike-breaker's decision to work, that this attitude is not all that far in the past. I'd argue that its unlikely to be in the past at all, at least in sentiment. That is scary stuff. It makes me wonder how, on the one hand, we can be here concerned for the well being of people oppressed by our governments, and concerned about people suffering (and you know, all that buddhist compassion stuff) and on the other hand, act very aggressive to people who don't exercise solidarity with unions, but, are nevertheless still oppressed. It seems a fairly narrow set of protocols for compassion, really. 'If you don't annoy me, or disagree with me, or get in my way, I'll care about your well-being'. No doubt, this is *exactly* how our elite think. It doesn't make for happy thoughts about the state of the left, when you consider how similiar, with little pushes, both sides appear to be. cheers, Derek

 Post a Response

Posted by dereklane on October 31, 2009, 8:54 pm, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"

"Despite it probably being token in nature, the union ought to at least try to offer compensation to people who respect the picket line" Another good idea. Also, see noamswampy's expansion on my suggestions which bypass the whole problem of strike-breakers, so as not to unnecessarily victimise them. They are good options - I can't for the life of me see why unions aren't adopting these more sane approaches (in acknowledgement of the repeated dirty tricks of capitalists) rather than running with the whole 'this is what we've *always* done, and so we continue...' approach. My wall analogy, I think, still stands. The problem, it would seem, is that a few people here dislike criticism of any kind of the unions, which is unfortunate. I would *much* rather criticise any union before singling out oppressed individuals and beating on them. btw, yes, individuals have responsibility. But what is happening here is that we are attributing blame rather than indifference to these characters. If they're not concerned or interested, rather than getting mad about that, the unions and their members should start by asking themselves why, and, if possibly, rectifying that in a way which will *increase* solidarity (ie, not by fighting with those people). Or, if that's a dead end, by circumventing them. The unions know this hole exists - the surplus workers, so why does it fool them every time? As NS suggested, go slows and other ingenious methods would be much more effective, and not have the need for either a) barrels of fire b) strike-breakers So everyone is a winner, because there is no victimisation of people who will take work if it is there (because the work won't be there). But while they're at it, they could strengthen the support they offer out-of-workers. cheers, Derek --Previous Message-- : Klaatu earthling. : : ~~~~~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.~~~~~ : : All fair enough but I wonder if you're : denying agency? Individuals are reponsible : to an extent : : ' History is not like some individual : person, which uses men to achieve its ends. : History is nothing but the actions of men in : pursuit of their ends.' : : The Blackleg is analogous to the foreign : workers imported like indentured labourers : at places like the Lindsey Oil Refinery. As : a device to undermine unionised workers they : become the ultimate reformists. : : Yes the union and its members have a wider : loyalty to the working class but that is : reciprocal. Despite it probably being token : in nature, the union ought to at least try : to offer compensation to people who respect : the picket line and the newly unemployed : (who are often surprisingly ignorant of what : unemployment has in store for them) should : have better manners. :

 Post a Response

Posted by dereklane on November 2, 2009, 9:03 pm, in reply to "Re: I'm All Right Jack!"

Thanks Stevo, I'm glad that my 'utter crassness' lead to this: "As a matter of fact, I do concede in part to the fact that someone desperate for work will accept work WHATEVER the cost. I can have some sympathy with that position. " Sometimes, you have to push every button just to get a basic position of compassion expounded. I apologise if I offended you in doing so, but I'm glad we're there. Also worth following up - maybe some other time, but with the unions rather than me - the point of that compassion (for me), which is to examine why unions choose to run with same-old, rather than some of the bordering genious ideas as NS came up with (or my in-house strikes, etc), that bypass that scapegoating, if for no other reason than that of affording compassion rather than hate to those who would take the job (by keeping it out of reach, essentially). If union advocates can do that, they'll help themselves and they keep the hate from spreading around people in their own classes, which has got to be good for everyone (or, at least, not so bad). cheers, and good luck, I hope next time we meet we can start fresh - we usually get along here, Derek --Previous Message-- : "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). " : : Wow....no, I have to say again....WOW!! : Comparing strike-breakers to the Palestinian : struggle and the plight of the Aborigine. : Normally I would normally try to keep things : as polite as possible but you really take my : breath away here with your utter crassness. : : As a matter of fact, I do concede in part to : the fact that someone desperate for work : will accept work WHATEVER the cost. I can : have some sympathy with that position. : : Does that make them right though? : Absolutely not!! : : How long does the strike-breaker get to : work? About a month ot six weeks, if he or : she's lucky, often on minimum wage and often : with far fewer rights that unionised staff. : OK, he's better off for that month a may : have paid a few bills but, ultimately, if : these temporary workers are continually : allowed to break strikes, what's the result? : : The most likely result that more and more : rights and benefits are eroded, bosses can : impose pay restraint and rip up agreements : at will...in short, EVERYBODY ends up far : worse off. : : A high price to pay for a few weeks work, : Derek. That's my point. How can making : life easier for management to impose pay : cuts and rip up agreements possibly be in : anybody's best interests? : : Can we sympathise (to a degree) with people : desperate for work accepting positions that : have them trampling on other peoples rights? : Of course we can! : : Can we blame the establishment for putting : people in this awful position? Absolutely. : : But is it right to break a strike, a strike : with overwhelming support by its union : members, remember, possibly resulting in : thousands of job losses, pay cuts and less : rights? Absolutely not!! : : --Previous Message-- : 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 : : : : :

 Post a Response