5 ms·
This is one of the reasons that people don't cross picket lines. Good people won't cross them out of principle. The unprincipled among us may encounter other o
by hapless 13y ago
This is one of the reasons that people don't cross picket lines.
Good people won't cross them out of principle. The unprincipled among us may encounter other obstacles. It is very likely this driver got his just deserts.
- mikeash 13y ago> Good people won't cross them out of principle. Can you explain why? I fully respect workers' right to unionize and strike, but there's no reason I should be bound by their strike.
- sliverstorm 13y agoIt's an us-vs-them thing. The idea being you are on the same team as other workers, whether or not you are part of their strike.
- kungfooguru 13y agoDo you understand how strikes work? It is gasp a form of DISRUPTION. Solidarity with the strikes by not crossing the line improves their chances of success.
- xxpor 13y agoWhat happens when you don't agree with the strike?
- kungfooguru 13y agoThen you can take your chances trying to cross.
- mikeash 13y agoWhy should I care about improving their chances of success?
- kungfooguru 13y agoIf you are a worker you should because improvements eventually expand to non-striking workers in the same field and other fields and because they would do the same for you if you needed support. If you are a capitalist, you wouldn't.
- mikeash 13y agoIt's a big assumption that improvements eventually expand to others. Yes, some have in the past, but that doesn't mean they all do, or all will. There's also a massive unstated assumption that there is an improvement at all. Surely if I happen to disagree with one or both of these assumptions, I can cross a picket line without being a "bad person"?
- hapless 13y agoIf you cross a picket line, you have publicly cast your lot with a particular class. Whether you are a bad person is in the eye of the beholder.
- mikeash 13y agoYou previously said that good people would avoid crossing a picket line out of principle. Now you seem to be saying that the reason to avoid crossing a picket line is because stupid people with a mob mentality might get the wrong message.
- LaGrange 13y agoBecause that’s strike-breaking. Because you don’t need many strike-breakers to break a strike. I don’t think it should be illegal (barring corruption, of course), but I do think it should be scorned.
- mattlutze 13y agoYou have an interesting view on the situation. I'm relatively certain that I have different views than you on the usefulness and appropriateness of unions in the modern world, but I appreciate your counter-position on the thread here. And, scorn is certainly merited from strikers toward strike-breakers. Scorn from non-strikers toward strike-breakers is for the individual to decide based on their opinion of the strike and the union striking, obviously.
- mikeash 13y agoThat's not an answer. "Why X?" "Because X."
- saalweachter 13y agoFor me it's more about a respect for the struggle we went through a hundred or so years ago, to get through to what's really a more civilized time. The early days of unionization, and the conditions that led up to them, were horrific. Forced labor, private and gov't armies shooting workers, beatings, below-living wages. Workers fighting back proportionally: strikes, destruction of corporate property, retaliation against scabs... The civilized workplace we have today -- 40 hour weeks, paid overtime, OSHA, banning of child labor, living wages -- was paid for with blood.
- oh_sigh 13y ago> For me it's more about a respect for the struggle we went through a hundred or so years ago, to get through to what's really a more civilized time. Wow, you must be the oldest person on hacker news!
- saalweachter 13y agoFor your consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrin_massacre
- oh_sigh 13y agoSo tell me - what was your role in these events? You said that you went through these struggles, so I'm curious what you contributed?
- imgabe 13y agoSo, because he drives for Uber instead of a traditional taxi company he deserves to have his car destroyed and to get beaten up? How do you figure? This isn't a bunch of striking coal miners who are protesting hazardous working conditions. This is an established incumbent who is trying to bend the regulations to stamp out an innovative service that is beating them out by offering a better customer experience.
- brohee 13y agoWhen you opt out shelling out the mandated by 240k € for the medallion, plus whatever it takes to pass the taxi driver exam, before you can even started to work, you can offer a lot better service... Anyone thinking Uber plays fair in this instance is deluded... Which doesn't mean the system doesn't need urgent reform...
- imgabe 13y agoIsn't the point of having an expensive medallion and driver exams that you have vetted drivers who can then offer superior service? If it's not accomplishing that and we're getting better service from the drivers who have found a loophole around, then what is the point of having that in the first place? Maybe just to create an artificially limited supply and line the pockets of the gatekeepers?
- brohee 13y agoThere is likely no point anymore, pretty much everyone agrees about that. But how do you transition to a new system in a fair manner?
- mikeash 13y agoIt would be painfully expensive for the government, but I wonder if the best solution might just be to take the fair market value of the medallions at some recent point in time and then use that value to buy out all the existing owners. In NYC, medallions go for about a million bucks these days, and there are over 13,000. So this plan would cost the city $13 billion, or about 1/3rd of the city government's yearly budget. That's a huge amount of money, but not completely out of the question.
- nknighthb 13y agoSupporting violence is the quickest and easiest way to lose people like me who are otherwise be supportive of the right to organize. There is no excuse for this behavior, and calling the victims of unprovoked violence "unprincipled" is absolutely irredeemable.
- leephillips 13y agoCan't a good person disagree with the strikers in a particular case? Why does walking around holding a sign mean that your cause is just? Is it wrong to help escort patients through the pickets in front of abortion clinics?
- kazagistar 13y agoI am pretty sure you can both be principled and think that their strike is stupid. Or by principled do you mean "shares a specific set of principles that I also share"?
- john_b 13y agoThis is like McDonald's workers going on strike and attacking a Wendy's employee for going into work. You're saying that you're ok with someone being subjected to violence because he just did his job as he does every day, but other people who did similar but different jobs happened to think that he should have stayed home that day. I doubt you'd think the same if a competitor of yours went on strike and attacked you for going into work. Saying that the driver here got his "just desserts" is a truly disgusting and reprehensible attitude that is not fit for a civilized society. When a larger group of people can organize and use violence to subject smaller groups to their will, you no longer live in a free society.
- hapless 13y agoIn this case, the airport is their work site. If a Wendy's employee attempted to cross a McD's picket line to work at the McDs, things would not go very well.
- john_b 13y agoAn airport is public infrastructure largely paid for by tax money collected from the citizenry. A McDs is a private business owned and operated privately. Even if the analogy were valid, if McDs employees on strike committed violence against someone crossing their picket line, it would be both illegal and immoral. Defending violence as somehow being ok because some group is on strike and gets angry at those who aren't is abhorrent.
- besquared 13y agoThe airport exists at and is allowed operated at the will of the government and citizens of France of which the cab drivers are merely a small part. No single union could ever claim the exclusive rights to transportation to and from the airport it as their worksite. That's an absurd analogy.
- john_b 13y agoThe taxi union is actually used to having a monopoly on travel to the airport[1][2]. So they actually have been able to claim that exclusive right, as absurd as it seems, for a long time. [1] http://www.connexionfrance.com/paris-taxis-keep-monopoly-charles-de-gaulle-taxi-rank-airport-11649-view-article.html http://www.connexionfrance.com/paris-taxis-keep-monopoly-cha... [2] http://thenextweb.com/eu/2011/05/07/disruption-in-france/#!r6RPb http://thenextweb.com/eu/2011/05/07/disruption-in-france/#!r...
- yetanotherphd 13y ago>The unprincipled among us may encounter other obstacles. Too ashamed of the violence you promote to be explicit about it huh? People like you belong in prison.