4 ms·
I've seen also some victim blaming in saying "well if the job is hard, ask for a raise or get a union!" Interesting story there. Back in the mid-20th century, t
by Fargren 15y ago
I've seen also some victim blaming in saying "well if the job is hard, ask for a raise or get a union!" Interesting story there. Back in the mid-20th century, trucking was one of the most heavily unionized industries, via the IBT primarily. However, in the 80s and 90s, various Republican and Democratic administrations collaborated with trucking companies to make war on the unions. Originally truckers were employed directly by the companies, but eventually those companies realized they could react to unionization by outsourcing truckers, either into private shell companies that closed down as soon as unionization hit or by hiring truckers as contractors. Various NLRB boards aided and abetted this regulatory change.
You are ignoring the other half of the argument here. In Argentina, were I live, truckers are heavily unionised; this is true to the point were the leader of the union (Hugo Moyano) is probably one of the biggest driving forces of the policies in the country. See, since the railroad was torn to pieces by the liberal policies of the nineties, trucks are the only way to transport goods from most of the country. So the trucking union has the power to literally stop the economy if they so wish. This happens almost every year, and sometimes several times a year. It's impossible to legislate against the union (for example, in order to create more trains) without having an enourmous economic baclash.
Now, I understand that it sucks to be trucker without a union. But there is a huge economical cost involved in monopolizing the control of any form of transport and communication.
- scarmig 15y agoOh, couldn't agree more. Different countries have different issues--my largely uninformed take on Argentina is that its biggest hurdles to development are shady bureaucracy and corruption. In the US I'd identify it as the domination of labor by capital. In my perfect world, power would be distributed diffusely, so that no person or institution would be able to effectively coerce another.
- kamaal 15y agoI don't think anybody(or any union for that matter) will stop working just like that. Especially considering the fact that time is equally crucial for them. Unions are needed to a extent, In my country(India), I would say unions are the only savior people in those professions have. As, if they are wronged in some way traditional way of approaching the courts takes years to get justice. But coming to the larger point, in societies throughout the world hard work isn't fashionable. The default assumption is that somehow only bright, smart and intelligent people have the monopoly to be rich. Dumb, hardworking rich people doesn't even go well below peoples throats. When you see some one poor, meticulously working hard building a career,growing rich by savings/investment over years and compare the same with some one who was originally rich and intelligent but has now lost significant fortune, career and other stuff because of the laxed attitude, over comfort and over spending(spend thrifts). Often the first guy (originally poor but now rich by hard work) is considered purely lucky or at most 'time is on his side' kind of arguments. A rich cab driver or a truck driver isn't something that goes down well in many societies. Truck drivers other manual labor workers do a lot of work, take bigger risks(in terms of all aspects). They have their own careers, retirement option et al to consider. Therefore I believe what your parent poster wrote is very correct.
- ctdonath 15y ago"I don't think anybody(or any union for that matter) will stop working just like that." The trucker's unions in the USA did - hence the aforementioned tearing apart of said unions by the companies and government.
- scarmig 15y agoThe last general strike that Teamsters were involved with was 1934. That's a long time for the companies to react.
- ctdonath 15y agoSo what was the big strike - or viable threat thereof - in the 1980s? Was young then, but do remember a big looming question of whether the trucks would continue running. Don't need an actual strike for an event to count, just a viable threat thereof.
- Fargren 15y agoI don't think anybody(or any union for that matter) will stop working just like that. Especially considering the fact that time is equally crucial for them. It happens. The union has a very charismatic "one of us" leader, and when he says the trucks stop, the trucks stop. A few years back, they stopped bringing milk and meat for a month to protest a new tax. This in a country where it's normal to eat meat more than 4 times a week, and milk is considered to be a basic need. I'm not against any hardworking person becoming rich. They certainly deserve to reap the benefits of their hard work. what I am against is for someone who was not elected democratically having the power to drive the direction of a countries growth.
- rmc 15y agoI don't think anybody(or any union for that matter) will stop working just like that. Especially considering the fact that time is equally crucial for them. A truckers union protest in the UK blocked the supply of petrol for a while.