babble: US construction union uses rent-a-picketers

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » labour and consumption » US construction union uses rent-a-picketers

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: US construction union uses rent-a-picketers

Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 09 June 2004 01:46 AM

This is really quite odd.

The old-fashioned method, where workers would protest their own conditions, is apparently passe.

From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 09 June 2004 02:17 AM

The U.S. now has the lowest percentage of unionized workforce in the developed world. They also have the highest rates of child poverty and infant mortality, just infront of Mexico's.

Walmart is now the largest private sector employer of American labour.

"Money travels the world from place to place. When it arrives, all is green, bustle and abundance. And when it leaves, all is trampled down, barren and bare."

"Where the military is, prices are high."

- 3000 year old Chinese proverbs

[ 09 June 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 09 June 2004 10:21 AM

That's a great idea, especially for the construction industry where the workers often move from site to site. If there is a dispute with one site, the construction workers can continue working at another site while the disputed site is picketed.

It's kind of like strike pay, but they are permanent strikers.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 June 2004 10:26 AM

Wow, this has really great optics for unions. Really great.

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 09 June 2004 11:22 AM

What are the optics Magoo?

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 09 June 2004 11:33 AM

Who has the hammer to negotiate? The construction workers who are still working and getting paid full rates? The Owner who's building is still being built at presumebly the same speed. Can one fault the public for drawing the conclusion that things can't be that bad if they don't even want to strike?

Oh yes, there is the irony of the union hiring immigrants at little more then minimun wage to do what they don't want to do. And its even better then their previous jobs! It would be interesting to know if these hire-a-picketer rates are less then one would get for strike pay. It reminds me of the Civil War when you could pay some poor shulb to take your place in the Union or Confederate army. It seems just a tad exploitive.

[ 09 June 2004: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 June 2004 11:33 AM

Poor downtrodden workers who hire someone to air their greivances for them? Professional protesters, briefed on the issue of the day and taught a few chants taking the place of the actual workers?

Isn't the point of a picket line to have workers both not working, and also airing their greivances to the public? Somehow it's not quite as convincing when a rented picketer demands an end to the unsafe conditions of a factory he doesn't work at, or protests the injustice of a contract she didn't sign.

And what happens when the public starts to recognize these 'strikers' after they've seen them on a few too many picket lines?

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 09 June 2004 12:13 PM

Ok, but you assume that all unions, especially construction unions are engaged in anything but business unionism. They are running a business that provides a service for their members. They don't care about social change if it gets in the way of making money. This is the logical next step in business unionism. It's the same reason that unions are willing to accept grandfathering clauses that see those already working retain benefits that are not available to those to be hired in the future. And when those hired in the future are negotiating contracts, they won't even think twice about agreeing to cut the pensions of those no longer working.

A strike is not always about optics, if it were, most unions would not strike as the optic is that they are greedy - or so the right-wing press would have us believe.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 09 June 2004 12:19 PM

Perception is reality and public support is essential in a strike.

Look how unsuccessful many strikes have been in Alberta. The lack of public support has much to do with it.

From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 June 2004 12:21 PM

quote:
A strike is not always about optics, if it were, most unions would not strike as the optic is that they are greedy - or so the right-wing press would have us believe.

And if it weren't about optics, then workers would just go home. Half of a strike is removing the labour from the equation and hoping the management withers without production. The other half is a visible, public attempt to get people onside with demands. I think the public is far more likely to sympathize with a group of striking workers if those workers are actually the ones on strike!

And of course the irony of hiring someone, for $8 an hour to protest your "unconscionable" pay freeze at $17 an hour is perverse in the extreme. The fact that anyone would be willing to stand around for 8 hours a day indignantly protesting someone else's working situation, when they've provided a far worse one for you, is indicative of the exploitation going on. Why aren't these hired "strikers" being paid exactly the same wage as the unionized workers they're representing demand?

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 09 June 2004 12:41 PM

Business is business and business unionism is business.

I admit that I jumped too quickly in my first post. But it is a good idea to the business unionist types. I don't support business unionism, I think it should be focussed on organizing and societal change.

You are right, they should be paid the same, and they should be members of the union with all the rights that entails.

From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003 | IP: Logged

red2
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5098

posted 09 June 2004 12:48 PM

this sanctimonious bleating ignores a few facts from the story, and it in turn ignores some basics of the construction industry, which I happen to work in.
starting wage on a union site is 45-50% of full rate, so these employees of the union are making a wage appropriate to their duties. they are also ,in their own perception, helping other workers who are being robbed of wages owed under a prevailing wage contract , which guarantees a set rate.probably husbands,brothers or sisters, who need the pay from the union to top up the substandard wages on that job.
big bad union crap again from the cosily ivory ensconced.
maybe we should try to change working conditions from computer chairs in air-conditioned offices downtown, over the internet. so much more civilized than those nasty sweaty laborers. and much less visible.

From: nelson | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 09 June 2004 01:03 PM

quote:
so much more civilized than those nasty sweaty laborers. and much less visible.

Seems to me that most posts on this thread have actually endorsed the idea of sweaty labourers, the more visible the better. Not hired sign-carriers.

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 10 June 2004 04:06 AM

Who does the collective bargaining for the Eleanor Clithero's, Sam Waksal's and John Roth's of this world ?. CEO's and CFO's for sinking ships should be keel hauled and made to walk the plank. And then they should be demoted to some non-union crappy job and paid "what they're really worth."

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 21 June 2004 12:01 AM

Truly pathetic.

This reinforces the idea that unions are simply businesses themselves. Unions have long ago abandoned the moral high ground and are nothing more than agencies for workers.

From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 21 June 2004 12:20 AM

quote:
big bad union crap again from the cosily ivory ensconced.

I couldn't agree more.

From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 June 2004 12:28 AM

Unions have never been needed moreso in Ontario with an average of two people dying on the job every week here.

And the Yanks are a lost cause. They lose more people to ladder falls, car accidents and hazardous work place environments every month than 9-11 terrorism ever caused. It seems that death by ladderism is a bigger threat to their national security.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged

ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 21 June 2004 12:34 AM

Perhaps, but if unions want to regain the moral high ground, they need to rediscover their roots. They need to organize minimum wagers more than highly paid construction workers.

Today's union worker has little in common with the coal miners who built the union movement decades ago.

From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 21 June 2004 12:41 AM

Reefer, nothing could be further from the truth. Most unions I know are particularly focused on organizing the unorganized. I am actually constantly and pleasantly surprised that unions constantly organize groups that end up costing the base money. Because unions are democratic organizations you would think that unions would be a reflection of their memberships narrow vested interests, but this is the exception rather than the rule. There is a lot of altruism in the union movement, even in the United States.

From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: