People's right to strike

[Hugh Mughnus]

i like the tribunal idea...but again, what criterion determines placement on this tribunal?

 

Systems and institutions of power in the United States at least have severely damaged unionism, maybe even beyond repair. I agree with Stephen that yes, there are very corrupt union practices and demands that can inequitably hurt the rest of the working class and average taxpayer. Does that equivocate with all unions as corrupt and damaging? If you are a CEO or a higher up, then the answer is undoubtedly yes. The rise of the wage ceiling can certainly be detrimental, but that's only half the picture. What about inflation with regards to living costs? Who makes up the difference there?

 

A significant argument used by anti-union groups is that living wages rose exponentially over the course of the Industrial Revolution. What they also fail to address within that same argument are the inflationary costs that coincide with heavy industrial economic expansion. Roads and infrastructure must be paid for by some body in order to allow these burgeoning dynasties of steel and oil to ship their commodities out to the purchasing public. Part of the answer for this was monopolizing the railroads into privatized cartels, and the implementation of a vertical integration system. This almost directly corresponds with the rise of unionist and organized reactions against these industries; they were artificially jacking up the worth of their commodity via railroad usage fees and other means of financial dishonesty.

 

Ill be damned if I throw away my right to demand a living for my work, and I certainly won't belittle those who are doing just that.

 

The right to strike should be looked upon with the same feelings the right to free speech is. Because in the end, its the same damn thing.

 

 

Also, just to per-emptively defend myself against what I sorta see coming, no, I'm not a Marxist. I don't think everyone was better off in the ages of feudalism.

 

I think you have some very good points. I think either of us could adequately argue either side with irrefutable evidence as to why our side is best.

 

This is like many complex topics, simply no way for everyone to come to a consensus, there are too many examples and concepts that come into play.

 

I don't equivocate the right to free speech and the right to strike though. One of those two is more likely to see an abuse of power, corruption etc.

 

Ireland is an extreme example of what happens when unions are given too much power.

 

I do believe that people should have the right to unionize and strike, however I think there needs to be a third party involved (instead of just management versus the union).

[SR4]

i think both sides can be feasibly implemented, in fact I'd argue that for any society with a modicum of democratic orientation, both sides are essential to preserving the stability of that state. The problem is that occasionally the pendulum swings a little bit too far to each side.

[SR4]

i like the tribunal idea...but again, what criterion determines placement on this tribunal?

 

Systems and institutions of power in the United States at least have severely damaged unionism, maybe even beyond repair. I agree with Stephen that yes, there are very corrupt union practices and demands that can inequitably hurt the rest of the working class and average taxpayer. Does that equivocate with all unions as corrupt and damaging? If you are a CEO or a higher up, then the answer is undoubtedly yes. The rise of the wage ceiling can certainly be detrimental, but that's only half the picture. What about inflation with regards to living costs? Who makes up the difference there?

 

A significant argument used by anti-union groups is that living wages rose exponentially over the course of the Industrial Revolution. What they also fail to address within that same argument are the inflationary costs that coincide with heavy industrial economic expansion. Roads and infrastructure must be paid for by some body in order to allow these burgeoning dynasties of steel and oil to ship their commodities out to the purchasing public. Part of the answer for this was monopolizing the railroads into privatized cartels, and the implementation of a vertical integration system. This almost directly corresponds with the rise of unionist and organized reactions against these industries; they were artificially jacking up the worth of their commodity via railroad usage fees and other means of financial dishonesty.

 

Ill be damned if I throw away my right to demand a living for my work, and I certainly won't belittle those who are doing just that.

 

The right to strike should be looked upon with the same feelings the right to free speech is. Because in the end, its the same damn thing.

 

 

Also, just to per-emptively defend myself against what I sorta see coming, no, I'm not a Marxist. I don't think everyone was better off in the ages of feudalism.

 

I think you have some very good points. I think either of us could adequately argue either side with irrefutable evidence as to why our side is best.

 

This is like many complex topics, simply no way for everyone to come to a consensus, there are too many examples and concepts that come into play.

 

I don't equivocate the right to free speech and the right to strike though. One of those two is more likely to see an abuse of power, corruption etc.

 

Ireland is an extreme example of what happens when unions are given too much power.

 

I do believe that people should have the right to unionize and strike, however I think there needs to be a third party involved (instead of just management versus the union).

 

 

I have to disagree there. People should fundamentally have the right to challenge a dictation by a certain industry or group in regards to the value of their labor. An individual's labor is just as significant if not more significant than any other aspect of their life. It earns them income, a means to make a living: quite literally, they survive. If an adjustment of wages can mean a smaller probability of survival, its only natural to expect individuals to fight for their previous levels of wages at all costs.

 

 

If they lose, they usually lose their jobs. Its a pretty huge risk to engage in such behavior in most cases. It may also press the company to re-evaluate costs and reflect on whether the increase in wages would result in a collapse or decline of the industry, versus simply a need to shift certain expenditures around. There is still not nearly enough hard economic evidence to show that the establishment of a minimum wage has significantly hurt American industry whatsoever. Remember the companies that survived the Ind. Rev., like Ford, which introduced the 5-dollar a day minimum working wage, the Amoskeag system that established the first Human Resources Departments, etc. Some companies can innovate, and if they are just as efficient at being a good company that an efficient, hard working laborer can be, both benefit and sustain (sometimes improve) their relationship.

[murve33]

I'm gonna leave this here because I don't want to make a thread for every individual issue that's wrong with America (as of late).

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

[joshuatxuk]

I'm gonna leave this here because I don't want to make a thread for every individual issue that's wrong with America (as of late).

 

http://www.wsws.org/.../prot-m03.shtml

 

Hah, we'd have enough threads for another subforum. I swear I read about another shitty law on a daily basis now.

[BobDobalina]

^ I read about this in our local freepaper and it made me feel equal parts infuriated and powerless. This will undoubtedly come to a boil in the run-up to the election, particularly with the national conventions of our two bought-and-paid-for political parties.

[Guest kokeboka]

Today was the strike I mentioned in the first post. The police came down pretty hard on protesters, this was taken today (the woman in the picture is a news photographer).

 

edit: this was also taken during today's protests

[danshoebridge]

I'll always remember the first time I went to a protest - I remember seeing gangs of police absolutley thrashing random bystanders, picking people off that got separated and attacking them in packs, like dogs. They also drove a police van through the crowd at pretty high speed, and periodically rode dozens of horses through too. Lots of people got pretty badly injured.

 

There were lots of people filming , and I remember thinking, fuck me, this'll be all over the TV when I get back. On my return, the BBC was just running endless footage of a couple of crusties smashing a shop window. Nothing else. It was a real eye-opener as to how things work in this country.