| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: California
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
You know, things would go much easier on you if you actually knew what you were talking about, rather than pretending you do and tryng to cover for it. One thing I can't stand is a fucking poseur. So just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, ask questions, and STOP FUCKING PRETENDING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. |
Believing you know everything about any subject is not only arrogance, it is true idiocy. Get over yourself Knight. I think it's pretty obvious the only one not listening or learning here is you, and when you stop learning, you're pretty much dead weight. Even if your views are correct the demeanor in which you present them tells everyone a lot about your character and demeans those very concepts. I would have more respect for your philosophy if it were presented in a calm intelligent manner, but as it is you are just giving more and more reasons to think that anyone who has the same views might be the same type of person you are. Please excuse my language other forum goers, but no more accurate way to describe it: You're a fuckin dick. I'd rather be a decent human who treats others with respect and decency that's wrong, than a total fuckin' asshole who's right. That's just me though, and I by no means profess to be perfect. How about you?
It's really too bad too, because it's obvious you do have some knowledge you could share with the world. Unfortunately no one is going to listen with the way you present it. I've tried to keep an open mind and learn from this conversation, but wading through the bullshit and insults is too much work to get to the occasional gem of real content in your posts. I hope you learn to manage that anger problem and someday you might actually be able to contribute something worthwhile in more than one out of ten sentences.
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | red scum.
I am very torn on this union stuff. on one hand I am with you. I know if it was me fighting for decent pay and for the boss to stop penny pinching even at the expense of safety, I'd probably bust some scabs heads in too. if its a fight for survival, its totally understandable that folks will do whatever it takes to survive.
I am working class, and I know first hand how those with power can abuse it. in fact, I'm pretty sure I've gotten canned for bringing up the idea of starting a union.
this one job I had in tulsa, a factory that made rubber molds and they had no air conditioning. the fellow employees was telling me about people passing out from the heat in the summer. hell it was hot in the winter in that building. I thought that we needed an air conditioner and out-loud I asked about forming a union.
that afternoon, I got called in the office and was fired. they never really gave me any reason. some flimsy exscuse about not really needing me or somthing, I don't know, but I bet'cha they haerd my union talk.
however here's a thought that came to my mind and its hard to ignore.
there is a person named jack who needs to see a barber and there happens to be a new guy in town who does cheaper hair cuts. as jack approaches the building, he sees the old barber beating the shit out of the new guy for "stealing his customers.
would you condone the old barber?
if you want to hire a plumber to fix your drain and you saw one guy charged cheaper, so you hire him and as he approaches your house, he gets beaten up by the other plumber who charges more, would you condone this?
so the question is, if there are people willing to take a job for less pay, then what right do you have to that job over them?
if the boss wants to fire you and hire them, why can't he, the same as you can start seeing the new barber who charges less for hair cuts, or the cheaper plumber?
how do you feel about the idea that immigrants are "taking our jobs"? do you think that americans do not have aright to those jobs if immigrants are willing to do it for less pay? if yes, then how are they different from scabs?
if no, then we go back to the above about why you have a right to those jobs over the other people? |
I think a better question would be how he feels about the employer who would rather give a job to an illegal immigrant than a citizen so he can pay a slave wage.
Last edited by gnosis on Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15983
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | I think a better question would be how he feels about the employer who would rather give a job to an illegal immigrant than a citizen so he can pay a slave wage. |
my post was about unions and scabs, not illegal immigration.
i brought that up because i have seen union supporting leftists who will scream "racist" at people upset over illegal immigration.
leftists who think "they took our jobs!" is code for "kill them wetbacks"
those same leftists would would say of scabs, "they took our jobs!"
now to be fair there are leftists who oppose illegal immigration and are for limiting legal immigration, so as to keep wages from dropping and red scum may be one of those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | my post was about unions and scabs, not illegal immigration.
i brought that up because i have seen union supporting leftists who will scream "racist" at people upset over illegal immigration.
leftists who think "they took our jobs!" is code for "kill them wetbacks"
those same leftists would would say of scabs, "they took our jobs!"
now to be fair there are leftists who oppose illegal immigration and are for limiting legal immigration, so as to keep wages from dropping and red scum may be one of those. |
Sorry if I am sidetracking the discussion. It seems a somewhat similar issue to me though, mostly about the greed of employers. I think the whole illegal immigration issue is really a misdirection, if the nation were to address the illegal practice of hiring undocumented workers we wouldn't even have an immigration problem, there would be no impetus for the immigrants to come here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 2:49 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Not an excuse. An explanation, and an obvious one at that. |
You've later explained what is your beef with scabs, but "I'm a union man" simply isn't one, any more then "because I'm German" is an explanation for putting Jews in concentration camps.
| Quote: | | How you figure? First off, I never used those terms, I simply stated the law does not mandate union shop, it must be agreed to. |
Yeah I guess I read into it more then you actually said.
| Quote: | | The workers collectively have one-- withholding their labor power. You can call leveraging such agreements coercion if you like |
No no no, I have nothing against withholding your labor. Quit, boycott, hell even strike as long as you're not infringing on anyone's property. That's a normal market process and no one should interfere with it.
The problem is the interference. Just like workers have the right to quit, the employer has the right to fire anyone he wants, as long as the conditions of the contract are kept.
Today's law is ridiculous, because it limits the control of employers over their own property... however as you pointed out it does also unfairly limit the workers in some cases.
But I have to wonder, if you think the workers are limited more then the companies, why don't you favor the free market approach?
| Quote: | | Wrong...we have the legal right to picket, but the employer can legally hire replacements, |
Which they have to get rid of, once the strike is over.
But you're right that was my mistake.
| Quote: | | and if we attempt to obstruct the entrances/exits of the building, we will be arrested or beaten by the cops. |
I have to ask, do you think that's wrong?
| Quote: | | And bargaining for labor peace has always been the tactic unions used, long before the NLRA. |
Thing is the whole idea of labor peace doesn't make sense to me.
If you pay the right price, there's no reason why workers should be 'unpeaceful'
If you pay too little then people will not work for you.
If you people are working for someone who supposedly pays too little then it means there are enough people who think he's paying enough.
| Quote: | | Then don't think of it as anecdotal evidence, think of it as a potential example-- surely you're not asserting NO Beck objectors or agency fee payers ever use the union when they get in trouble? |
A single example detached from the other instances is an anecdote.
It's like with that bit about rampant abuse of courts. You can give some examples of courts stopping strikes, you can show how courts were the most active in the US, but if you look at the context of those events it turns out they were used less then 2% of the time...
| Quote: | | Nope, just means you use progressive discipline to correct the work performance/behavior of an employee you've identified as a problem. First verbal warning, then written, then suspension, then discharge. For more serious offenses/willful misconduct, you can jump straight to suspension or discharge. It's not that difficult, but some managers are iether arrogant and figure they don't need to do it, or too stupid to know better, that's when I get to beat on them in greivance hearings. Smart managers don't give me much room to operate. |
You may think it's arrogance, but the same way I have a right to throw someone out of my house if I don't want them there, employers have the right to throw someone out of the workplace.
On what grounds can other people demand that I issue warnings, suspensions and whatnot?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the regulations probably specify what those "more serious offences" are, so what the employer can do with his property is determined by beurocracts.
| Quote: | | The Act is shorter than that summary (or if it is longer, not much more so). |
Yeah, but it's lawspeak.
Alright, I'll try to dig through it, or find a direct reference somewhere.
| Quote: | | Scale and principle can be intertwined. Don't you feel differently about the character of a person who murders once in an act of passion then a cold-blooded serial killer? Do you really think a ridiculously wealthy man sitting miles away coldly ordering the massacre of unarmed strikers and ther families is morally equivalent to a desperate, hungry miner murdering a traitor? Yes, they're both murderers, but I think the circumstances and the scale of the respective murders does have bearing on the moral character of the people involved. |
It's not that simple.
What if that massacre took place on the property of the ridiculously wealthy man, because the people he ordered killed didn't want to leave it?
And how is it an act of passion if the "traitor" didn't pose a threat to anyone life or property?
| Quote: | | Yes, just as what I was responding to was just your speculation. If I had statistics I'd give em to ya, but I can only tell you what has been my personal experience on the matter. |
The problem with this approach is that for every example you give I can find another one to the contrary. It would quickly turn into an anecdote finding contest that doesn't prove anything.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason_Harvestdancer
WonderMod Powers ACTIVATE!
Joined: 23 Oct 2005
Posts: 2420
Local time: 4:49 PM
Location: Northern LA County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | hillbillyatheist wrote: | my post was about unions and scabs, not illegal immigration.
i brought that up because i have seen union supporting leftists who will scream "racist" at people upset over illegal immigration.
leftists who think "they took our jobs!" is code for "kill them wetbacks"
those same leftists would would say of scabs, "they took our jobs!"
now to be fair there are leftists who oppose illegal immigration and are for limiting legal immigration, so as to keep wages from dropping and red scum may be one of those. |
Sorry if I am sidetracking the discussion. It seems a somewhat similar issue to me though, mostly about the greed of employers. I think the whole illegal immigration issue is really a misdirection, if the nation were to address the illegal practice of hiring undocumented workers we wouldn't even have an immigration problem, there would be no impetus for the immigrants to come here. |
But you didn't answer the question of your opinon of the old barber who beats the shit out of the new barber or the expensive plumber who beats the shit out of the cheap plumber.
_________________
Nos laetus edo qui votum opprimo nobis.
LakeGeorgeMan actually think's I'm Socrates.
Visit my wife's art gallery |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 7:49 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hillbillyatheist wrote: | red scum.
I am very torn on this union stuff. on one hand I am with you. I know if it was me fighting for decent pay and for the boss to stop penny pinching even at the expense of safety, I'd probably bust some scabs heads in too. if its a fight for survival, its totally understandable that folks will do whatever it takes to survive.
I am working class, and I know first hand how those with power can abuse it. in fact, I'm pretty sure I've gotten canned for bringing up the idea of starting a union.
this one job I had in tulsa, a factory that made rubber molds and they had no air conditioning. the fellow employees was telling me about people passing out from the heat in the summer. hell it was hot in the winter in that building. I thought that we needed an air conditioner and out-loud I asked about forming a union.
that afternoon, I got called in the office and was fired. they never really gave me any reason. some flimsy exscuse about not really needing me or somthing, I don't know, but I bet'cha they haerd my union talk.
however here's a thought that came to my mind and its hard to ignore.
there is a person named jack who needs to see a barber and there happens to be a new guy in town who does cheaper hair cuts. as jack approaches the building, he sees the old barber beating the shit out of the new guy for "stealing his customers.
would you condone the old barber?
if you want to hire a plumber to fix your drain and you saw one guy charged cheaper, so you hire him and as he approaches your house, he gets beaten up by the other plumber who charges more, would you condone this?
so the question is, if there are people willing to take a job for less pay, then what right do you have to that job over them?
if the boss wants to fire you and hire them, why can't he, the same as you can start seeing the new barber who charges less for hair cuts, or the cheaper plumber?
how do you feel about the idea that immigrants are "taking our jobs"? do you think that americans do not have aright to those jobs if immigrants are willing to do it for less pay? if yes, then how are they different from scabs?
if no, then we go back to the above about why you have a right to those jobs over the other people? |
Well, first off hillbilly, I did draw a distinction between a, let's say for shorthand, "street scab" and a "union scab". The first is a guy who never worked at the company before the strike, the second is a union member who crosses the line. The street scab I got some sympathy for, the union scab I got none.
In the case of the union scab it's not about someone taking "your" job, it's about treachery and fucking over your coworkers, pure and simple. Now, here on the internet we can have all kinds of "above the fray" discussions about principles and ethics, but in the real world, as I expect you know, it's a different story. You're out on strike, getting no unemployment, limited strike benefits from your union, making due on less to try to get a better contract from your boss. Now a union brother who you've worked side-by-side with, gone to union meetings with, sat at lunch with and swapped stories, and maybe even went out boozing with or engaged in family activities with, now this fuck breaks ranks and fucks you and everyone else by going in to continue production. You gonna have sympathy for that weak, selfish asshole? Not me, but then again, I'm not the most forgiving type.
In the case of the "street scab", well, hey, I feel bad for them...but do I think the people slashing their tires are bad people for doing so? No. A strike is war. It's not about anyone "stealing" your job; it's that you're at war with management and the future of your livelihood is at stake. You do what you have to in order to win that strike. The scabs know a war is going on and they volunteered as soldiers for management. Now thankfully in the strikes and lockouts I have overseen, my guys have never resorted to vandalizing the scabs' property or assaulting them. As an organizer, I don't recommend it. However, if it were ever to happen, I might be upset that it was a bad tactical decision depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't be morally outraged if, say, a street scab's windshield got broken by my union brothers. I would be pissed if they put the poor slob in the hospital, but simply assaulting a union scab, I wouldn't condone it, but honestly I wouldn't be at all sympathetic to the union scab. I know I'll catch all kinds of shit from Ivan and others on this, but I gotta be honest-- someone turns on their union brothers and sisters I could give a flyin fuck if they got cancer and died. But that's me-- a lot of organizers have a more sympathetic attitude than I do. Admittedly I can be an unforgiving asshole.
That bein said, in the vast majority of circumstance in 2008 America I see little justification for putting a scab in the hospital, and in most cases I think even roughing them up is a bad idea. If we ever got back to the days when there was no social safety net and companies were machine gunning down strikers I'd probably change my tune, but we ain't there (yet).
So I can understand what you're saying, and for some union people it could be about "stealing jobs", but that's just never the way I looked at it, either as a worker or an organizer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason_Harvestdancer wrote: |
But you didn't answer the question of your opinon of the old barber who beats the shit out of the new barber or the expensive plumber who beats the shit out of the cheap plumber. |
I don't condone any sort of violence at all, but I think the question is irrelevant when the national guard shows up and machine guns them all down for rioting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 7:49 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | But I have to wonder, if you think the workers are limited more then the companies, why don't you favor the free market approach? |
I've stated the reason in discussions with you elsewhere...I think free-market theory is fundamentally wrong and would never work in practice. If I thought it would work, I'd probably favor it.
| Quote: | | Which they have to get rid of, once the strike is over. |
Legally no. The law prohibits hiring permanent replacements in a ULP strike only (a strike over an Unfair Labor Practice-- a violation of the NLRA in other words). In a strike over a dispute over the terms of a proposed new or successor collective bargaining agreement (usually called an "economic strike" b/c it's normally over economic issues, but doesn't have to be), the employer is free to hire permanent replacements. That was decided my the Supreme Court many, many moons ago.
| Quote: | | I have to ask, do you think that's wrong? |
Shit, Ivan, I dunno. I mean, I get where you would be coming from on this and given our respective differences on the issue of private property, there's no argument I could make to convince you otherwise. All I know is if I'm organizing a strike, it is my responsibility to see that the strike is won, theoretical considerations aside.
| Quote: | Thing is the whole idea of labor peace doesn't make sense to me.
If you pay the right price, there's no reason why workers should be 'unpeaceful'
If you pay too little then people will not work for you.
If you people are working for someone who supposedly pays too little then it means there are enough people who think he's paying enough. |
You are in a stronger bargaining position if all your coworkers threaten to withdraw their labor at once then if you simply threaten to quit.
| Quote: | | You may think it's arrogance, but the same way I have a right to throw someone out of my house if I don't want them there, employers have the right to throw someone out of the workplace. |
It's arrogant if you agreed to a contract with a "just cause" provision. It's really simple, if you want your workers "at will" then you don't agree to a union contract in the first place. If the union forces your hand with a work stoppage, then tough shit, live with the contract you signed and respect it whether you like it or not.
| Quote: | On what grounds can other people demand that I issue warnings, suspensions and whatnot?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the regulations probably specify what those "more serious offences" are, so what the employer can do with his property is determined by beurocracts. |
Well, yes and no. It comes down to the standard of just cause which is either implicit or explicit in every contract. Some contracts also go on to detail the progressive disciplinary procedure. Where the practices for "just cause" aren't explicitly enumerated, labor arbitrators have developed a series of "tests" (through the course of precedential labor arbitration cases) to determine whether or not an employee was disciplined or discharged for just cause, and these tests have become standard for the vast majority of arbitrators. Most management and union reps know what they are. And most also know which offenses are grounds for immediate discharge and ones that are grounds for progressive discipline/corrective action. Of course, there are the management people that either don't know or don't care and those are the ones responsible for firing a person on something that won't stick at arbitration.
The only way the government comes into it at all, and it's very tangental, is when it comes to what's grounds for immediate dismissal. That's because sometimes aribtrators will look at the standard for whether someone would be qualified to receive unemployment benefits upon termination. In most states an employee is not eligible to receive UC/UI if they were terminated for "willful misconduct", but beyond the standard of "willful misconduct" sometimes being used by arbitrators, the gov't really doesn't have anything to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 2:49 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | I've stated the reason in discussions with you elsewhere...I think free-market theory is fundamentally wrong and would never work in practice. If I thought it would work, I'd probably favor it. |
Well then we should discuss why you think it won't work specifically.
| Quote: | | You are in a stronger bargaining position if all your coworkers threaten to withdraw their labor at once then if you simply threaten to quit. |
Sure, the point is if the employer actually is paying too little, many employees will threaten to quit. You won't need a union for that.
| Quote: | | It's arrogant if you agreed to a contract with a "just cause" provision. It's really simple, if you want your workers "at will" then you don't agree to a union contract in the first place. If the union forces your hand with a work stoppage, then tough shit, live with the contract you signed and respect it whether you like it or not. |
Ok, you're right, if they signed a contract they have to keep it, thing is I'm not entirely sure they would sign it, if there were no labor regulations.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15983
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | hillbillyatheist wrote: | red scum.
I am very torn on this union stuff. on one hand I am with you. I know if it was me fighting for decent pay and for the boss to stop penny pinching even at the expense of safety, I'd probably bust some scabs heads in too. if its a fight for survival, its totally understandable that folks will do whatever it takes to survive.
I am working class, and I know first hand how those with power can abuse it. in fact, I'm pretty sure I've gotten canned for bringing up the idea of starting a union.
this one job I had in tulsa, a factory that made rubber molds and they had no air conditioning. the fellow employees was telling me about people passing out from the heat in the summer. hell it was hot in the winter in that building. I thought that we needed an air conditioner and out-loud I asked about forming a union.
that afternoon, I got called in the office and was fired. they never really gave me any reason. some flimsy exscuse about not really needing me or somthing, I don't know, but I bet'cha they haerd my union talk.
however here's a thought that came to my mind and its hard to ignore.
there is a person named jack who needs to see a barber and there happens to be a new guy in town who does cheaper hair cuts. as jack approaches the building, he sees the old barber beating the shit out of the new guy for "stealing his customers.
would you condone the old barber?
if you want to hire a plumber to fix your drain and you saw one guy charged cheaper, so you hire him and as he approaches your house, he gets beaten up by the other plumber who charges more, would you condone this?
so the question is, if there are people willing to take a job for less pay, then what right do you have to that job over them?
if the boss wants to fire you and hire them, why can't he, the same as you can start seeing the new barber who charges less for hair cuts, or the cheaper plumber?
how do you feel about the idea that immigrants are "taking our jobs"? do you think that americans do not have aright to those jobs if immigrants are willing to do it for less pay? if yes, then how are they different from scabs?
if no, then we go back to the above about why you have a right to those jobs over the other people? |
Well, first off hillbilly, I did draw a distinction between a, let's say for shorthand, "street scab" and a "union scab". The first is a guy who never worked at the company before the strike, the second is a union member who crosses the line. The street scab I got some sympathy for, the union scab I got none.
|
well yeah the union scab is a fucking traitor. I'd kick his ass too and even harder than a street scab. one's a threat to my survival. the other is a traitor AND a threat to my survival.
| Quote: | | In the case of the union scab it's not about someone taking "your" job, it's about treachery and fucking over your coworkers, pure and simple. Now, here on the internet we can have all kinds of "above the fray" discussions about principles and ethics, but in the real world, as I expect you know, it's a different story. |
this is true. when the shit hits the fan its about trying to survive.
of course this is as you say, just the internet and its interesting to explore these issues.
kinda like how we both agree stealing is wrong, but if I was starving and couldn't beg up enough money I wouldn't think twice about shop lifting food.
its like folks stealing gas. I think they're wrong, but I don't really blame them if its because they can't afford it and need it to get to work and to the gorcery store.
| Quote: | | You're out on strike, getting no unemployment, limited strike benefits from your union, making due on less to try to get a better contract from your boss. Now a union brother who you've worked side-by-side with, gone to union meetings with, sat at lunch with and swapped stories, and maybe even went out boozing with or engaged in family activities with, now this fuck breaks ranks and fucks you and everyone else by going in to continue production. You gonna have sympathy for that weak, selfish asshole? Not me, but then again, I'm not the most forgiving type. |
nope. I am on the same page with you here.
| Quote: | | In the case of the "street scab", well, hey, I feel bad for them...but do I think the people slashing their tires are bad people for doing so? No. |
well me neither, but my question was whether it was the right thing to do.
| Quote: | | A strike is war. It's not about anyone "stealing" your job; it's that you're at war with management and the future of your livelihood is at stake. You do what you have to in order to win that strike. The scabs know a war is going on and they volunteered as soldiers for management. |
well that's an interesting take. its not about who has a right to what job, its purely a ruthless struggle to survive. I am aware of the bloody strikes in our history such as in Appalachian coal towns. I don't blame them one bit for fighting, and think their cause was just.
I still wonder why they have the right to the job over the scabs. this is getting back to "We're on the internet with the luxury to think about this"
I am fully willing to admit if I was on that picket line in harlen, I wouldn't give shit about who had a right to what, I'd be pissed and fighting for my lively hood as you say.
I still can't see how isn't different from the barbers though.
| Quote: | | Now thankfully in the strikes and lockouts I have overseen, my guys have never resorted to vandalizing the scabs' property or assaulting them. As an organizer, I don't recommend it. However, if it were ever to happen, I might be upset that it was a bad tactical decision depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't be morally outraged if, say, a street scab's windshield got broken by my union brothers. I would be pissed if they put the poor slob in the hospital, but simply assaulting a union scab, I wouldn't condone it, but honestly I wouldn't be at all sympathetic to the union scab. I know I'll catch all kinds of shit from Ivan and others on this, but I gotta be honest-- someone turns on their union brothers and sisters I could give a flyin fuck if they got cancer and died. But that's me-- a lot of organizers have a more sympathetic attitude than I do. Admittedly I can be an unforgiving asshole. |
well I hope they don't hate me either, I am more ideologically close to them than you, but on this one point I'm on your side.
| Quote: | | That bein said, in the vast majority of circumstance in 2008 America I see little justification for putting a scab in the hospital, and in most cases I think even roughing them up is a bad idea. If we ever got back to the days when there was no social safety net and companies were machine gunning down strikers I'd probably change my tune, but we ain't there (yet). |
yeah when it gets to the point of machine guns, than it really is a war, and imo, any and all necessary means should be taken to win it.
but in todays world, even unions are not always necessary. and many times they get corrupt and actually make things worse for the workers, the company and its customers.
take the writers union. apparently you can't even be a writter unless you join it, and they can shut down all our shows over stuff that imo isn't worth fightiog for. its not like they are fighting for their very existence like coal miners were and somtimes still are.
and why can't hollywood producers higher nonunion writers if they wish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4658
Local time: 10:49 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | take the writers union. |
The sad thing about the writer's strike is that I noticed absolutely zero ill effects caused by it. Sure there are economic effects. But literary effects, I noticed none.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:49 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
You know, things would go much easier on you if you actually knew what you were talking about, rather than pretending you do and tryng to cover for it. One thing I can't stand is a fucking poseur. So just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, ask questions, and STOP FUCKING PRETENDING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. |
| gnosis wrote: | | Believing you know everything about any subject |
isn't what I'm dong, kiddo. So get over yourself. I know that you're butthurt, but that's YOUR problem. It's pretty obvious that I've already done the research, and the idiot socialists just aren't listening.
You can whine all you like. You can cry all you like. You can throw a fucking hissy fit. But I don't give a flying fuck. You want to impress me? Show me that you actually know something of the topic being discussed. Otherwise: you can just fuck the hell off and shove your holier-than-thou fucking bullshit up your raw red sphincter. You STILL haven't figured out that style-over-substance is a fallacy. Impress me just ONCE by fucking realizing that, will ya? Think you can do that for me, chuckles?
Nah--you're too much of a fucking candy ass who cries about the word "fuck".
| gnosis wrote: | | I think a better question would be how he feels about the employer who would rather give a job to an illegal immigrant than a citizen so he can pay a slave wage. |
No such thing as a slave wage. Only idiots ignorant of economics believe that there is such a thing. And only idiots who don't grasp the nature of prices (of which wages are an example) think that giving an "illegal immigrant" a job rather than a "citizen" is wrong. Fucking morons like you who have no idea of the nature of value dare to fucking speak as if you do? Fuck you, you arrogantly ignorant fuckstain.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: |
You know, things would go much easier on you if you actually knew what you were talking about, rather than pretending you do and tryng to cover for it. One thing I can't stand is a fucking poseur. So just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, ask questions, and STOP FUCKING PRETENDING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
isn't what I'm dong, kiddo. So get over yourself. I know that you're butthurt, but that's YOUR problem. It's pretty obvious that I've already done the research, and the idiot socialists just aren't listening.
You can whine all you like. You can cry all you like. You can throw a fucking hissy fit. But I don't give a flying fuck. You want to impress me? Show me that you actually know something of the topic being discussed. Otherwise: you can just fuck the hell off and shove your holier-than-thou fucking bullshit up your raw red sphincter. You STILL haven't figured out that style-over-substance is a fallacy. Impress me just ONCE by fucking realizing that, will ya? Think you can do that for me, chuckles?
Nah--you're too much of a fucking candy ass who cries about the word "fuck".
No such thing as a slave wage. Only idiots ignorant of economics believe that there is such a thing. And only idiots who don't grasp the nature of prices (of which wages are an example) think that giving an "illegal immigrant" a job rather than a "citizen" is wrong. Fucking morons like you who have no idea of the nature of value dare to fucking speak as if you do? Fuck you, you arrogantly ignorant fuckstain. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:49 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | isn't what I'm dong, kiddo. So get over yourself. I know that you're butthurt, but that's YOUR problem. It's pretty obvious that I've already done the research, and the idiot socialists just aren't listening.
You can whine all you like. You can cry all you like. You can throw a fucking hissy fit. But I don't give a flying fuck. You want to impress me? Show me that you actually know something of the topic being discussed. Otherwise: you can just fuck the hell off and shove your holier-than-thou fucking bullshit up your raw red sphincter. You STILL haven't figured out that style-over-substance is a fallacy. Impress me just ONCE by fucking realizing that, will ya? Think you can do that for me, chuckles?
Nah--you're too much of a fucking candy ass who cries about the word "fuck".
No such thing as a slave wage. Only idiots ignorant of economics believe that there is such a thing. And only idiots who don't grasp the nature of prices (of which wages are an example) think that giving an "illegal immigrant" a job rather than a "citizen" is wrong. Fucking morons like you who have no idea of the nature of value dare to fucking speak as if you do? Fuck you, you arrogantly ignorant fuckstain. |
Oh look--no rebuttal from the cowardly little fuck who thinks he knows everything about everything and then projects that onto me.
What a fucking candy-ass shitsuck.
You realize that you've fucked yourself over, gnosis. You've thrown a tantrum over the word "fuck". How fucking childish is that? Get the fuck over yourself, little one.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2373
Local time: 7:49 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, obviously no "excessive language" rule on this forum, eh?
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
