4 ms·

> the workers that are filling in for the strikers are scabs This skips a step. Who gave the strikers the right to choose this for the entire workforce? If my

> the workers that are filling in for the strikers are scabs This skips a step. Who gave the strikers the right to choose this for the entire workforce? If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? The article gives no information about who the workers are, how many of their fellow workers they represent, how long they've been doing the job. I'm not sure what would qualify them to speak for everybody, but it's got to be more than giving a quote to NPR, and surely it depends how many of them there are, relative to their coworkers.

EarthIsHome 7y ago
> If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Yes. Call it scab, strikebreaker, whatever; you are undermining your coworkers' demands and weakening the strike. Of course it's not easy to strike, but it's necessary if you support their demands. You show solidarity and support by striking with your coworkers. It's most powerful when done as a whole block.
- derision 7y ago
  What if I disagree with their characterization of the situation and I'm perfectly happy with my working environment?
  - EarthIsHome 7y ago
    > What if I disagree with their characterization of the situation and I'm perfectly happy with my working environment? Then it's clear you don't support their demands. You're siding with management and not your fellow coworkers. That's fine, just know that your choice doesn't fully support their demands and is hurting their movement.
    - derision 7y ago
      And what if their movement is hurting my employment, and thus my livelihood? The attitude you're suggesting is basically holding me hostage to your demands, regardless of if they're reasonable or not.
      - chickenpotpie 7y ago
        Can you give an example of a movement that would hurt your employment?
        derision 7y ago
        Any movement where continuing my expected duties considers me a "scab" and views me in an unfavorable light, simply for showing up, doing my work, and providing for my family. Under your description, that covers any movement
        chickenpotpie 7y ago
        Yes, but the goal of any movement is once the demands are met, it should be a net positive to you. Can you give an example of a movement, where if the goals are met, it will be a net negative to you?
        93po 7y ago
        Any political movement outside of socialism
        chickenpotpie 7y ago
        I'm talking about more PTO, higher salaries, longer parental leave...
        sixstringtheory 7y ago
        This assumes the outcome is indeed positive. What if the striker and scab disagree on this, though? What if someone believes the strike will result in lost jobs or closure of the company?
- david_w 7y ago
  But that is the point of the other person, right? Why does the striker get to call the tune and not the non-striker. You assume the striker always has the moral high ground, why? That's a big assumption. I've lived this. When I worked in a union job, I was forced to hand over a part of my paycheck to my union who did absolutely nothing for me when management went hostile without cause. As far as I could tell, the union was a gigantic executive/manager pyramid which was supporting its lifestyle on our backs. No bathroom break, no breaks at all- literally law breaking- no protection from management abuse of any form. This is the case in a lot of jobs. The facts on the ground as I lived them are- unions do nothing for workers. They run campaigns for Democrats. Democrats empower unions. The worker still gets screwed. Give me a right to work state and enforcement against past jobs badmouthing former employees - which is something no one ever enforces or in any way patrols for employers doing and which is ruinous to working people's prospects- and I'll be fine. What's the ultimate goal- to serve and support unions or make life better for the working person? Because they aren't the same thing.
  - salawat 7y ago
    What Union, might I ask? The main benefits of a union tend to manifest in the collective set of workers actually being able to set up infrastructure for command, control, and communication. Things like retaining legal representation for members, emergency war chests, and collective bargaining. >I was forced to hand over a part of my paycheck to my union who did absolutely nothing for me when management went hostile without cause. How do you mean? Did they not get you representation? We're you not afforded any protection? Did your Union rep stone wall, or just figure you were a lost cause? I'm genuinely curious. I've been trying to find examples of Union failure states to compare with the pre-Taft-Hartley era unions. The statistics are clear that Unions worked for the group's amongst which they gained traction. At least when the tables weren't so tilted that even an outright failure was better than not trying. >The facts on the ground as I lived them are- unions do nothing for workers. They run campaigns for Democrats. Democrats empower unions. The worker still gets screwed. How? Gory details please. I'm aware that there is generally some level of "the Union didn't do enough"; but again, without details it's hard to try to posit what one can do/not do in order to get the best out of a collective bargaing unit. Also, as some historical evidence to prop up your case, back during WWII, I think it was the steelworker's union that ended up giving organized labor a black eye. I think what these folks are asking for is reasonable; and the expectation at large is going to be the firm's need to accomodate
- noscabi 7y ago
  Just one person's declaration is enough to make me a 'scab'? No group functions that way. To use a dumb analogy, if I declare that HN is at war with Reddit, and you don't join in, that doesn't make you a 'traitor' to HN. A single member doesn't get to arbitrarily declare a high-stakes situation for an entire group just by saying so. The question is, what are the actual norms that determine it, and are the current strikers meeting those norms, or have they simply gotten some media attention? By the way, I'm not saying their demands aren't reasonable.
LiquidSky 7y ago
>If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Yes.
- jedberg 7y ago
  No that's not how strikes work. First you have to form a union, and then the union has to vote with a majority deciding to strike. Then you have a strike. If a few coworkers get together and declare a strike, you are not obligated to join them. Even if the majority get together, you are not obligated, because you had no say in the matter. That is the point of the union.
jiveturkey 7y ago
> If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Are you part of a union, with the striking worker? Yes: you are a scab No: you are not a scab
- david_w 7y ago
  Did he have a CHOICE to be a part of a union? I sure didn't. It was mandatory- they had a legal right to a part of my paycheck.
  - vkou 7y ago
    You always have a choice to work for a non-union shop.
    - david_w 7y ago
      Unless they're not hiring, right? And you need a job yesterday- owing to biology and all that jazz...
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    It's like living in a country. If you disagree with the democratic government and actively oppose it's efforts are you traitor? That's a question of morals. No definitive answer.

EarthIsHome 7y ago

> If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Yes. Call it scab, strikebreaker, whatever; you are undermining your coworkers' demands and weakening the strike. Of course it's not easy to strike, but it's necessary if you support their demands. You show solidarity and support by striking with your coworkers. It's most powerful when done as a whole block.

derision 7y ago
What if I disagree with their characterization of the situation and I'm perfectly happy with my working environment?
- EarthIsHome 7y ago
  > What if I disagree with their characterization of the situation and I'm perfectly happy with my working environment? Then it's clear you don't support their demands. You're siding with management and not your fellow coworkers. That's fine, just know that your choice doesn't fully support their demands and is hurting their movement.
  - derision 7y ago
    And what if their movement is hurting my employment, and thus my livelihood? The attitude you're suggesting is basically holding me hostage to your demands, regardless of if they're reasonable or not.
    - chickenpotpie 7y ago
      Can you give an example of a movement that would hurt your employment?
      - derision 7y ago
        Any movement where continuing my expected duties considers me a "scab" and views me in an unfavorable light, simply for showing up, doing my work, and providing for my family. Under your description, that covers any movement
        chickenpotpie 7y ago
        Yes, but the goal of any movement is once the demands are met, it should be a net positive to you. Can you give an example of a movement, where if the goals are met, it will be a net negative to you?
        93po 7y ago
        Any political movement outside of socialism
        chickenpotpie 7y ago
        I'm talking about more PTO, higher salaries, longer parental leave...
        sixstringtheory 7y ago
        This assumes the outcome is indeed positive. What if the striker and scab disagree on this, though? What if someone believes the strike will result in lost jobs or closure of the company?
david_w 7y ago
But that is the point of the other person, right? Why does the striker get to call the tune and not the non-striker. You assume the striker always has the moral high ground, why? That's a big assumption. I've lived this. When I worked in a union job, I was forced to hand over a part of my paycheck to my union who did absolutely nothing for me when management went hostile without cause. As far as I could tell, the union was a gigantic executive/manager pyramid which was supporting its lifestyle on our backs. No bathroom break, no breaks at all- literally law breaking- no protection from management abuse of any form. This is the case in a lot of jobs. The facts on the ground as I lived them are- unions do nothing for workers. They run campaigns for Democrats. Democrats empower unions. The worker still gets screwed. Give me a right to work state and enforcement against past jobs badmouthing former employees - which is something no one ever enforces or in any way patrols for employers doing and which is ruinous to working people's prospects- and I'll be fine. What's the ultimate goal- to serve and support unions or make life better for the working person? Because they aren't the same thing.
- salawat 7y ago
  What Union, might I ask? The main benefits of a union tend to manifest in the collective set of workers actually being able to set up infrastructure for command, control, and communication. Things like retaining legal representation for members, emergency war chests, and collective bargaining. >I was forced to hand over a part of my paycheck to my union who did absolutely nothing for me when management went hostile without cause. How do you mean? Did they not get you representation? We're you not afforded any protection? Did your Union rep stone wall, or just figure you were a lost cause? I'm genuinely curious. I've been trying to find examples of Union failure states to compare with the pre-Taft-Hartley era unions. The statistics are clear that Unions worked for the group's amongst which they gained traction. At least when the tables weren't so tilted that even an outright failure was better than not trying. >The facts on the ground as I lived them are- unions do nothing for workers. They run campaigns for Democrats. Democrats empower unions. The worker still gets screwed. How? Gory details please. I'm aware that there is generally some level of "the Union didn't do enough"; but again, without details it's hard to try to posit what one can do/not do in order to get the best out of a collective bargaing unit. Also, as some historical evidence to prop up your case, back during WWII, I think it was the steelworker's union that ended up giving organized labor a black eye. I think what these folks are asking for is reasonable; and the expectation at large is going to be the firm's need to accomodate
noscabi 7y ago
Just one person's declaration is enough to make me a 'scab'? No group functions that way. To use a dumb analogy, if I declare that HN is at war with Reddit, and you don't join in, that doesn't make you a 'traitor' to HN. A single member doesn't get to arbitrarily declare a high-stakes situation for an entire group just by saying so. The question is, what are the actual norms that determine it, and are the current strikers meeting those norms, or have they simply gotten some media attention? By the way, I'm not saying their demands aren't reasonable.

LiquidSky 7y ago

>If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Yes.

jedberg 7y ago
No that's not how strikes work. First you have to form a union, and then the union has to vote with a majority deciding to strike. Then you have a strike. If a few coworkers get together and declare a strike, you are not obligated to join them. Even if the majority get together, you are not obligated, because you had no say in the matter. That is the point of the union.

jiveturkey 7y ago

> If my coworker says "I strike" and I stay at my desk, does that make me a "scab"? Are you part of a union, with the striking worker? Yes: you are a scab No: you are not a scab

david_w 7y ago
Did he have a CHOICE to be a part of a union? I sure didn't. It was mandatory- they had a legal right to a part of my paycheck.
- vkou 7y ago
  You always have a choice to work for a non-union shop.
  - david_w 7y ago
    Unless they're not hiring, right? And you need a job yesterday- owing to biology and all that jazz...
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It's like living in a country. If you disagree with the democratic government and actively oppose it's efforts are you traitor? That's a question of morals. No definitive answer.