3 ms·

This 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

by john_b 13y ago

This 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 ago
In 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 ago
  An 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    The 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...

by john_b 13y ago

hapless 13y ago

In 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 ago
An 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 ago
The 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 ago
  The 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...