If I ran the show I would forbid it as not only an immoral act but also an illegal one. It is illegal to strike break in Canada. An owner cannot hire goons to itimidate or otherwise harass lawful picketers. Why then is it legal for scabs to cross apicket line and do the same thing under the protection of management goons?

The Bob Rae government banned replacement workers. The harrisites repealed the legislation. In many jurisdictions around the world there is, I believe, similar anti-scab legislation.

In the US, as usual, powerful capitalist interests have actually passed "right to work" legislation which hobbles uinionization drives and threatens the very existence of unions in some states.

I have had a number of discussion with "prescabs", being assigned the role of trying to convince them that they should not cross and that their actions are hurtful to the collective interests. To no avail, unfortunately.

Fortunately, only a handful have risked the scorn and contempt of their fellows. But it is not these people who I disdain.It is the management policies that condone their actions, calling it a "political act of conscience" or a "moral decision". It is neither in my view. It is neither a "right" or a "priviledge" it is simply that the State supports the abusive acts of individuals against individuals for monetarty gain. It is an illegal act in my view and a violation of my collective bargaining rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
They have every right to another's livelihood, because that other chooses to stand in solidarity with his fellow workers?

---

Yes.

Isn't the purpose of unions to prevent employers from forcing their employees to endure inhuman conditions or to pay them in such a way that they cannot possibly afford the means to live?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
If these "scabs" are so eager to cross the picket line, the pay and the working conditions can't be that bad.

---

quote:

---

And that most union agreements do not allow for anyone but managers to take their place.

---

Actually when there is a strike on, the collective agreement no longer exists. So in places where there isn't anti-scab legislation (everywhere except Quebec I think) employers are just about free to do what they want legally speaking.

quote:

---

It is my understanding that striking workers cannot block access to a place, merely stop each person to inform them of the strike

---

True. In practice though what happens is usually negotiated with local police departments. Normally a protocol is worked out whereby picketers will "delay" people/vehicles from entering a facility for a certain number of minutes. (They need time to let people know about the strike).

I crossed a picket line once. The strike was illegal, I vehemently agreed with the reasons given for the strike and I especially regretted the effects on the public.

Hitler imprisoned and murdered lefists and union leaders as did his ally, General Franco, in Spain. The murder and torture of thousands of union officials and socialists was also on the political agenda in General Pinochet's Chile and in Argentina in the 1970's and '80's. Pregnant socialists in Argentina who didn't abort on the torture tables were paraded infront of military personel for adoption. Padres were given the task of comforting helicopter pilots whose job it was to fly leftists and others out over the Pacific.
Comforting in case they had second thoughts and to convince them that they were doing God's work. The U.S. made helicopters would return to land without their human cargo.

Dozens of socialists, union reps and social workers were rounded up by police and their civil liberties denied in a certain Northern country a couple of decades ago. Some have speculated that the FLQ crisis was a diversion away from accusations of government corruption involving the mafia at that time. Jean Chretien was Pierre Trudeau's strong arm tactician who suggested the war measures act be implemented.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebel:
The strike was illegal

---

All strikes used to be illegal. It is, basically, in the interests of rich people to restrict the legality of strikes as much as possible. 'Course, I never heard of an "illegal lockout".
The question I always wonder about when I hear about a strike being illegal is, was it just that this strike was illegal? In BC, the government recently legislated a contract on the health workers. Note that this is an oxymoron, and if anyone tried to do it to a corporation the media would vilify them so hard they'd be lucky to keep a seat next election. That is, a contract is an agreement between two parties, signed by both. One party dictating something and calling it a "contract" is a vicious distortion of language. The government imposed wage rollbacks and various other unpleasant conditions purely by virtue of being the ones with the power to legislate; it was utterly unjust. And yet, it would have been illegal for the health workers to continue striking now that they had a "contract". But I'll tell you right now I would have backed such an illegal strike to the hilt!

Second point--gosh, the strike was inconvenient! How awful! What the hell do you think a strike is for? Are strikes only OK if nobody is inconvenienced? Yeah, as long as the strikers don't in any way demonstrate that their labour is useful when they're supplying it, striking is fine. Whatever! You think they were on the line for fun?! Striking means your bank account going poof. Striking means watching your groceries. Striking means wondering if you can make your car payment or your rent. It's not something you go around doing if you've got another choice. And scabbing is a total punch in the gut to people who have no power other than the power to withhold their work and have it mean something.

When scabbing is allowed, unions become largely meaningless and wages will inevitably erode. It's the difference between workers and bosses both bringing powers to the table, and bosses simply deciding how little they want to pay. It may take a while for the reality to sink in to all the parties and practises to change to reflect it, but when scabbing is legal the long term trend is set. At least, unless the unions ultimately decide that the laws are set up to hamstring them and there's no point in respecting them any more. In which case we're back to nineteenth century unionism.

Perhaps a compromise (for the necessary services) might be to bar replacement workers for, say, 2 weeks. That should give management and the bargaining unit time to see if there's hope for a settlement, but would ensure that we're not all up to our ears in rotting garbage for more than 2 weeks.

And while I'm happy to have a union behind me, I think it's always worth noting that while sanitation workers might be striking to protest their wage going up 1% to a "measly" $23.16/hr, there's a janitor just down the street who lifts just as many garbage cans in a day and gets $8.65/hr for it, with no bargaining power whatsoever.

And I've never really understood the supposed moral suasion against people, scabs or others, crossing picket lines. Besides which, unionized picketers physically blocking or fighting with scabs just seems like one group of working joes picking on another group.

So I'd say the picture of ideal human behaviour (which if people lived up to, there would be no need for unions or strikes anyway, but anyway...) is that picketers would ignore the presence of scabs, or those they assume to be scabs, leave them be, and take up the fight to prevent a company hiring replacement workers through public opinion, the legislature and the courts.

Would I take a job as a replacement worker, if I needed one, during a legal strike? No, I consider it unethical.

ETA: Actually, I didn't mean no one has a right to go about their own private business, I meant noone has a right to prevent anyone else from doing so.

Stoopid dropped words.

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

It's entirely another matter to claim that they have the right to withhold the labour of other people as well.

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

It's one thing to claim that workers have the right to withhold their labour, or that they have the right to increase their bargaining power by collectively agreeing to withhold their labour.
It's entirely another matter to claim that they have the right to withhold the labour of other people as well.

---

What is a self-confessed scab doing on a progressive discussion forum? Are militant trade unionists and anti-racism activists welcome with open arms on neo-Nazi and Heritage Front discussion forums?

Scabbing is class treason, and as Fidel said, scabs are the shock troops of the destruction of the workers' movement and other progressive social movements.

Indeed, as Scott raised, historically scabbing has often been the result of desperate situations; that is, of management playing different layers of the working class against one another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
What is a self-confessed scab doing on a progressive discussion forum?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

Yes, well. With that rather detached and dry, though doubtless rational realisation, where does that get us, Oliver?

---

quote:

---

All strikes used to be illegal.

---

But they're not now, are they? So what is the relevance of your statement?

quote:

---

But I'll tell you right now I would have backed such an illegal strike to the hilt!

---

And if I agreed with the reasons my union gave for striking, I too would have been out on an illegal strike. But I didn't and I wasn't.

quote:

---

Second point--gosh, the strike was inconvenient!

---

Re-read my post. I wasn't saying they were incovenient, I was saying they were self-defeating and essentially illogical.

quote:

---

When scabbing is allowed, unions become largely meaningless and wages will inevitably erode.

---

Unions *are* largely meaningless and wages *are* eroding. Line crossing doesn't happen nearly to the point where it could be held to blame.

quote:

---

And rebel, you're not a rebel. You seem to be quite the reverse: a very conventional conformist.

---

oooh, ouch. Now you're hurting me.

Seriously, it would have been way easier for me to walk out with the rest. I took a lot of grief for what I did and I know there were plenty of others who didn't want to walk but did anyway because they were afraid of the union. Unions aren't above enforcing solidarity by bullying.

quote:

---

What is a self-confessed scab doing on a progressive discussion forum?

---

Lagatta, I'm here expressing a different point of view. Or do you read these postings only to find people who agree with you?

quote:

---

Exactly. Even some of the most right-wing conservative workers have enough morals not to cross a picket line.

---

There are also a lot of very right-wing conservatives who are not nearly as judgemental as you.

I actually have been on strike. I didn't want to, I thought the union leadership had a completely idiotic sense of strategy, but I did it because I felt a sense of responsibility to the union to which I belonged. If other people had gone into work, however, I wouldn't have had the type of reaction you guys have.

So, to sum up: If the strike is stupid but legal, I strike. If the strike is illegal but justified, I strike. If, however, the strike is stupid *and* illegal, I go to work. Simple.

quote:

---

As a liberal, I'm not comfortable with the jump from the principle of 'We have the right to withhold our labour to reinforce our demands' to 'We have the right to withhold the labour of others to reinforce our demands'.

---

So in some cases, it is not really one person's right to cross the picket line, but rather, a collective right to act against the employer.

I wish I could find a link for this case on the PSAC.COM website but I cannot. I'll try again later or maybe someone else knows where to find it? Key search words would be NEB and PSAC and scabs.

Since we had paid for our education already, we weren't exactly 'scabbing' if we crossed. On the other hand, many of us wanted to express our support for the strikers. On the third hand, none of us could afford to take another year of schooling.

Scabbing is not only immoral and anti-union. It is about the same as the horrible crime of a home invasion (where someone forces their way into a person's house and robs them, often injuring or killing the legitimate residents--a spree of this is going on in the Lower Mainland right now--very distressing).

The right to a job--as in the right to earn a living--is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech, etc. The "right" to take another persons' job during a conflict or dispute, and therefore their livelihood, is theft. Pure and simple. It is also an unethical affront by taking advantage of someone else's misfortune or difficulty. Bosses hire scabs exclusively to undermine the bargaining power of the legitimate employees by forcefully stealing their jobs.

It's also a question of ownership. When a person is hired to work, no one in fact "gives" them the job. Rather, they earn it via demonstrating their qualifications, aptitude, etc. Once this happens, that job is theirs, and no one, especially not the boss, has the right to arbitrarily farm it out to someone else to suit the boss' special interests. This applies during a labour dispute as well, where the worker withholds his/her labour in protest of a corporate policy or practice imposed on them.

Ideally, if we had some real justice in our economy, workers wouldn't have to go on strike and withhold their labour. Rather, they would be able to remove the non-elected corporate management and replace them with an elected management team and keep the business running on their own terms (actually, in a just economy working people would democratically run businesses via various cooperative, community enterprise, employee/union ownership, etc. and strikes/lockouts would likely become a thing of the past).

Since we don't have this yet, then strike action is all workers have to pressure the boss.
In BC, we have anti-scab legislation. It is one of the few pieces of progressive reforms brought in by the NDP that the BC Liars haven't dumped--at least not yet. This is because it has turned out to be one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever adopted here.

The union employees in any business are, both by law and by ethic, the legitimate employees in that business. They earned these jobs as mentioned above. This is in no way diminished because of a labour dispute, whether deemed as legal or not

"As a liberal, I'm not comfortable with the jump from the principle of 'We have the right to withhold our labour to reinforce our demands' to 'We have the right to withhold the labour of others to reinforce our demands'."

Oliver Cromwell.

So yer a liberal. That explains a lot of your reasoning (or lack thereof). It seems to me you are more than just that. Rather, you come across as an academic equivalent of a religious cultist pushing largely unrealistic dogma and theoretical assumptions about corporate capitalism that hardly apply in the everyday person's world.

For example, legitimate workers of a picket line trying to block scabs from stealing their jobs and undermining their bargaining position is no more "withholding the labour of others" than these same people trying to stop a home invasion where they live by "withholding the labour" of the home invaders.

quote:

---

As a liberal, I'm not comfortable with the jump from the principle of 'We have the right to withhold our labour to reinforce our demands' to 'We have the right to withhold the labour of others to reinforce our demands'.

---

I guess where I'm getting confused here is that this thread is talking about scabs, and I think you're talking about union workers who don't agree with a strike and therefore should not be prevented from going to work (...if that's not it, then stop reading here).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Workers cannot enjoy the benefits and security that collective action gives them and then suddenly decide that, in a strike situation, they can simply choose to "give of their labour", because it's their labour to withold or not. Well, if that's the case, these peoples' jobs should be up for grabs at any time. I should be able to walk into any enterprise and say "hey, you...I can do your job at half the wage and more efficiently, therefore, your boss has no other other option than to sack you and hire me, in this marketplace of individual labour ownership." Obviously, that does not happen, and collective agreements prevent exactly that thing. So what exactly are you talking about, Oliver?

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

Klingon: Your schtick is now officially too tedious to deal with. Learn to make your arguments like a human.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

quote:

---

I don't really have any problem with unions trying to enforce union solidarity; they have every right to discourage free riders. But couldn't that be dealt with in the civil courts?

---

I'm pretty sure the blight of libertarianism and Randite lunacy has infected modern Economics from Greenspan on down.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

There is actually a lot to be said for a lot of what is in liberalism.

The idea of freely entered contracts, between free individuals, without third-party dictation as to the nature of their relationship has a great deal of intellectual consistency.

This is the job, these are the conditions, this is the rate of pay. Do you want it? Yes? Okay.

Business is bad. The conditions are changing.

"I won't accept these conditions."

Then you are free to go.

"I will go on strike."

Fine, you can stop working for me, I'll get someone else. You've made your decision and I've made mine.

The logic is crystal clear.

But I just finished reading a book about the 1890s Pullman Strike, and its effects on the United States.

Basically, judges and politicians came to the conclusion that industrial strife was becoming too intense, the wider society was too threatened, to allow strikes like at Pullman to continue to happen.
They had always justified their crackdowns on workers with the liberal dogma of free contracts, but the reality was that unions and their members were angry and would continue to rebel against this system and therefore endanger the republic.
So, gradually, they began to allow "corruptions" to the liberal edifice and created the modern industrial relations regime. (now under attack since the Reagan era)

It is the same thing with scabs. Liberal dogma says that they're free to take the jobs of those who don't want them, but reality shows that using scabs enflames workers and their unions, and forward thinking governments outlaw the use of scabs to preserve peace.

re: If the conditions are so bad, why do the scabs take the job? Ignorance. Just look at the boobs who scabbed in Peter Pocklington's Gainer's meat plants. They tried to form their own union. The conditions were terrible. [Pocklington fired them.]

But, some provisos before admitting the sterling genius of liberalism. Liberalism can only begin to make sense socially when there is a truly level playing field. To say that workers, with nothing to sell but their labour, are equal to employers, especially corporate, oligarchic employers whose very existence makes a mockery of liberal individualism and free contracts, is deluded.

Also, the basis of the employer-employee relationship is based upon the destitution of the working class. I'm not a Marxist, but Marx, and many other writers, described the creation of a dependent proletariat, with no independent means to subsist. They not only sell their labour, but they surrender their right to free speech, freedom of action.
This is the basis of the employer-employee relationship, and it is based on the utter dependence of early workers. It is mitigated now by community standards, employer benevolence, and the material standards of the society in question.
But i think we should move towards working relationships that recognize the humanity of workers, and that says that employers do not hire only labour, but an entire human being, with inalienable rights. All work relationships should be considered true, and equal partnerships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

As a liberal, I'm not comfortable with the jump from the principle of 'We have the right to withhold our labour to reinforce our demands' to 'We have the right to withhold the labour of others to reinforce our demands'.

---

I don't see how this could have been interpreted as a statement of Rand-type dogma. I'm not resolutely opposed to collective action in all contexts. But my reflex is to ask why it's necessary in the first place.

quote:

---

So far, the closest thing I've seen to a solid answer is thwap's 'social peace' argument.

---

[ 11 April 2006: Message edited by: John_D ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Hmm When I was at York, the strikers were trying to get students to not cross the line and skip classes.

On the plus side though, York had already announced there would be no penalties for students who refused to corss during the strike.

---

Those that honour the picket line do it because they think it is the right thing to do. It follows then that they feel they have some choice in the matter. I recognize this essential and important aspect of consent in a collective agreement.But I still feel that the option is not for or against but rather either benefit by participating or decline the benfits and work elsewhere. That to me would be the "act of conscience".

Scabbing is disgusting enough in the private sector where greed is in some sense more sanctioned but in public institutions where the common good is the ethical standard, condoning scabbing, indeed paying them even, is reprehensible.

The arguments in support of this position are nonexistent and/or moronic.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: DonnyBGood ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John_D:
I'd like to explore a side-issue, for a moment. This is not a purely academic concern for me, either, as it addresses a situation that might have befallen my mother a few years ago (luckily, a strike was averted at the last minute and she didn't have to make a choice).

I clearly agree that scabs are the scum of the earth, or at least the blue collar part of the earth. But I'm not certain how broadly "scab" should be defined. Does this mean someone who takes on an existing job held by a worker on strike, or does it mean anyone who crosses a picket line to work, regardless of circumstances? What of a situation where some departments of a company are unionized, and others are not. Would the non-unionized workers be considered scabs if they crossed a line to work? Personally, I don't think so, so long as they limited themselves to doing only their own job and made it clear they would not "cover" for striking workers. What are your thoughts on this?

---

I had always thought, personally, that during strikes, people could cross picket-lines when they weren't doing the work of the strikers.

That was why management could cross the lines, and, in many earlier industrial disputes (1950s) union leaders told male strikers not to harass the mainly female administrative assistants on their way to work.

I always thought that the whole "don't cross the line" thing referred to actual scabs doing the work of the strikers.

Apparently, this wasn't accurate. In Hamilton, unionized HSR (bus) drivers wouldn't cross the picket line at McMaster University and drove around the campus.

When the boiler workers were on strike though, and I had business on campus, I approached the line and asked what the policy was, and they said "What the hell can you do? Go ahead, go to school, just hope the guys they've got watching the boilers don't blow everybody up." As long as I wasn't helping management, my presence on campus wasn't hurting the strikers.

It seems to me, personally, and i'll wait for a reply, that going to government offices during a strike isn't wrong, because they're non-profit, so all the "business" they get while they're short-staffed only increases the pressures on management.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
A few years ago when I was a student at UBC, the support staff went on strike. This created a dilemma for the students.

The strike ended the same day anyway, but I still don't know what the appropriate action would have been in a long strike.

---

quote:

---

But normally, employers can't make union people cross other union people's picket lines, and unions will penalize members who do.

---

This is a lot lest clear cut than it used to be. Many agreements now state that the union members will cross picket lines if it is not their union striking with substantial penalties if they dont.

What we could do (legally) was controlled by our collective agreement (which was still in force, since it wasn't our CA that was being negotiated). In my case, it said that we should work, but that we couldn't be required to do the work of the staff on strike.

My understanding is that, since our collective agreement was still in force, it would be illegal for me to ignore it and not show up to work. (Of course, under some circumstances, that might be the right thing to do. Also, I have heard that some collective agreements include the right to "sympathy strikes", in which case, if organized by the union, I guess it wouldn't be illegal to refuse to work.)

One of things I believe is that generally, no one person has the right to physically prevent--particularly body-to-body--any other person from going anywhere except onto property owned by or put in charge of the first person.

So, in my book, strikers have no _right_ to physically prevent anyone, scab or not, from physically crossing a picket line. Acts of civil disobedience, through which strikers might use passive means to prevent/delay access are acceptable given that said strikers accept that they are risking legal punishment by those acts.

So taking the title of this thread literally (well, except for the word scab, which is obviously a delightful figurative description), then I'd say of course scabs have the right to cross picket lines, just like everyone (possibly excepting other unionized workers who have freely entered into contracts with their unions which prevent them from doing so).

But physically crossing a picket line, trying to take a job as a replacement worker, and actually taking a job as a replacement worker are three different things.

And just because one has a right to do something, doesn't mean someone should ever do it.

_However_, since I'm not a passionate unionist, I'd have to put scabbing in the same category
as abortion, killing in self-defence, shoplifting groceries or stealing to support an addiction (and come to think of it, roughing up a scab when things get hot on a picket line): they're activities ideally avoided, but in a non-ideal world, I'm so far from those situations that I'm in no position to sit in judgement.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

In Webster's dictionary, it says

"crust formed over a wound.... somebody who works while his colleagues are on strike"

So right now, if you were to cross the picket line at one of the Federal Government buildings while PSAC members are outside picketing, nobody would be angry at you for crossing the line if you were to get your passport. If you were coming to make a payment for your taxes or get forms, I guess we would ask you to make a payment online or at your bank instead and to download the forms from the internet so you don't need to come into the building.

Canadian Union of Postal Workers ( God Bless 'em ) refuse to cross our picket line. They do not bring or take out mail from our building. They don't HAVE to do this, but they chose to. I don't know what kind of ramifications that has on them, by their employer.

Does a union executive have the right to expect the members to criminalize themselves by walking out in defiance of a back to work order? Even if said executive is too cowardly to risk arrest by publicly calling for the strike? And what if some members feel strongly that the union is wrong and the issue is too trivial to become a criminal for? What about the effect on the public of public service strikes? Those of you who spoke of 'public good' seemed to really mean 'union member good'.

>"As usual with this type of issue, there is a lot more heat than light in this forum. The emotion and blind zeal are almost religious in nature."

You need to look at the pro-scab element here for the religious zeal and heat without light. These are the folks that under other circumstances happily condemn a person's actions that intentionally hurt another person, yet seem to come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's OK to cross picket line and steal another person's job, thus taking advantage of their conflict, and servicing the boss to further disenfranchise those legitimate workers.

>"Does a union executive have the right to expect the members to criminalize themselves by walking out in defiance of a back to work order?"

The reality is that union members vote as a group to defy a back to work order, as did the ferry and hospital workers against the atrocious agenda of the BC Liar regime. In both those cases, union executive members were on the picket line ready to be arrested along with everyone else. That is what usually happens in such a situation.

>"Even if said executive is too cowardly to risk arrest by publicly calling for the strike?"

This of course is baloney. See above.

>"And what if some members feel strongly that the union is wrong and the issue is too trivial to become a criminal for?"

Unions in Canada operate on the majority rule system. If the membership votes to strike, everyone agrees to go out, despite his or her concerns (which of course they are free to express at the meeting where the vote takes place or elsewhere when talking with fellow union members).

IF the vote is to not strike or defy a back-to-work order, then everyone goes back to work, regardless of the concerns of those who feel it's important to defy it (again, they too can express these concerns at meetings where votes are taken).

Keep in mind the executive and elected leaders can only advise or recommend to the membership what to do. The members make the ultimate decision.

>"What about the effect on the public of public service strikes?"

First of all, potential negative impacts of the public are taken into consideration by union negotiators before any job action begins. For example, in hospitals, fire and police services, etc., minimum staffing levels are set in order to frustrate the boss but still keep the service running sufficiently to handle the most extreme cases.

Here in BC in May, when the BC Liar regime refused to negotiate any essential service staff levels (because they were unilaterally imposing a contract), the hospital workers at both acute, long-term, community and home-based services set their own minimum staffing levels--some of which were higher than are agreed to by bosses during legal strikes (they did this by picketing in shifts while working reduced hours, etc.

Every poll, including among hospital patients, showed overwhelming support for the hospital workers.

Secondly, public sector--and in fact private sector as well--strikes or lockouts would be a lot less commonplace if workers and their unions were given a greater say in the running and planning of services, businesses and policy.

The fact is economic democracy, the cornerstone of socialist economics, works just fine. Repeated industrial studies show the more say unions have in running a business and being involved in the decision-making, the more tranquil the labour relations climate.

According to the Canadian Cooperative Association, a large majority of cooperative and other worker run enterprises are union members. Yet strikes are almost non-existent. Why? Because the workers have a democratic say in running the business. They don't have to strike against the imposition of bad corporate policy by unelected capitalistic bosses.

SO I ask, in the bigger picture, what is more harmful to the public: a temporary strike by the workers who provide those very services, or that dictatorial corporate management structure that unilaterally imposes its will on both workers and the public that creates such conflicts to begin with?

>"Those of you who spoke of 'public good' seemed to really mean 'union member good'."

This is the typical divisive garbage we should expect from corporate apologists.

First, as said, it is the union members who get off their butts every day and apply their skills and labour to provide the public with the services it needs and pays for. That alone makes them protectors and advocates for the public good.

Second, the public is made up almost entirely of working people, just like those who work in the public service. Economic history shows that when wages, working conditions, health and safety and human rights gains are made in the public sector, the demand for similar changes increases in the private sector, among both union and non-union workers.

Third, labour markets surveys for the last 30 years have shown that industries and economic sectors that are heavily unionized enjoy higher wages and benefits, more employment (and therefore more investment) stability, better training, skill development and career advancement opportunities, human and civil rights protections, and are generally have to deal with more community or ecological demands, than sectors that are predominantly non-union.

Not only that, but some of these benefits of the heavily unionized sectors spill over into the remaining non-union operation in those sectors.

>"Are unions the ultimate arbiters of all that is right and good?"

Of course not. No one can be (although there are some that think they can).

However, one need only look at history across the globe to see the vital role the labour movement has played in the struggles for the public interest, such as democracy, personal and community safety, peace and social justice, universal health and education, social security, right of access to information, job creation and economic democratization and, increasingly environmental health, among other issues.

The issue of defying legislation is problematical for public servants because they are for the most part "lawful good" as they say in D&D.

But this strike is completely lawful and its moral justification derives from the time practice used by our union leadership of exhausting every possible alternative prior to a strike, includng conciliation.

What I think is incorrect is to say that someone has the "right" to cross the picket line. They simply have the power to do it. There are competing and conflicting laws here that are not being addressed by our bourgoise legislators.

1) The right of one persons not to interfere with the rights of another.

2) The rights of contracting parties not to have their contracts breached by persons not party to the contract (the scab).

What should happen is that these two laws be made consistent by simply banning the scab and their activities outright.

Your point about democracy is also very expressed and the notion of rule by majority. History tells us that freedom is better served by rule by majority. That is some retrictions on the notion of absolute freedom for the collective benefit provides for more freedom overall.

quote:

---

the Rebel decides to reign down superior wisdom on the rest of us:

---

My post consisted almost entirely of questions. How do you interpret that to me I "reign (sic) down superior wisdom"?

quote:

---

yet seem to come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it's OK to cross picket line and steal another person's job,

---

quote:

---

The reality is that union members vote as a group to defy a back to work order, as did the ferry and hospital workers against the atrocious agenda of the BC Liar regime.

---

The reality is that (at least in the case of the ferry workers) this is a load of crap. I know some ferry workers and there was no vote on the back to work order. There was an original strike vote which passed as they always do. I doubt that there was a separate vote in the case of the hospital workers either but perhaps you could back up your claim.

I was in a union for over 10 years and I never saw a strike vote that got less than a 90% mandate. This is because strike votes were always taken before serious negotiations began. The workers weren't voting for a strike, they were voting to give the executive more bargaining power. It was a stupid and dangerous game of brinkmanship.

quote:

---

In both those cases, union executive members were on the picket line ready to be arrested along with everyone else.

---

I expect leaders to show leadership, not hide behind the crowd.

quote:

---

Keep in mind the executive and elected leaders can only advise or recommend to the membership what to do. The members make the ultimate decision.

---

Crapola. Have you actually ever been a union member?

quote:

---

This is the typical divisive garbage we should expect from corporate apologists.

---

I'm not apologizing for anyone, least of all myself. I am pointing out that unions, like other organizations, make mistakes and should be called to account for them.

Read the postings. Point out one logical, dispassionate, reasonable argument of why what I did was wrong. Just one. There isn't one and the reason isn't necessarily because one doesn't exist. It's because this board is populated by the true believers, people who want to believe the unions are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Does everyone here believe there is never, ever a situation where the executive is wrong, so wrong, that it is proper and just for individuals to exercise civil disobedience against the union? Apparently, here everyone is OK with civil disobedience against governments.

quote:

---

First, as said, it is the union members who get off their butts every day and apply their skills and labour to provide the public with the services it needs and pays for. That alone makes them protectors and advocates for the public good.

---

quote:

---

Second, the public is made up almost entirely of working people, just like those who work in the public service. Economic history shows that when wages, working conditions, health and safety and human rights gains are made in the public sector, the demand for similar changes increases in the private sector, among both union and non-union workers.

---

quote:

---

However, one need only look at history across the globe to see the vital role the labour movement has played in the struggles for the public interest, such as democracy, personal and community safety, peace and social justice, universal health and education, social security, right of access to information, job creation and economic democratization and, increasingly environmental health, among other issues.

---

quote:

---

Your point about democracy is also very expressed and the notion of rule by majority. History tells us that freedom is better served by rule by majority. That is some retrictions on the notion of absolute freedom for the collective benefit provides for more freedom overall.

---

>"My post consisted almost entirely of questions. How do you interpret that to me I "reign (sic) down superior wisdom"?"

We sob at manufactured innocence. Your questions were loaded with inaccurate rhetoric, and you damn well know. I simply called you on it by taking some time to respond to them.

BTW, "reign down with.." is not a spelling error. It's an actual English term that means to try to dominate. It has nothing to do with rain. So far, the only "sic" thing around here is you.

>"Personally, I haven't done or justified this. All I did was go in to do my own work. In the face of conflicting orders from the government and the union, I exercised independent thought and action."

Interesting. I never referred any of my comments to anything you had done. I didn't even know until this point you had crossed a picket line. I could be wrong but I sense a little remorse on your part.

>"Of course, independent thought and action is an anathema to the union."

Again more outright dishonesty and insults made as simple statements. Anyone who has attended a serious union meeting where grave concerns dominated has experience the wide range of views and debate from a huge cross section of people. It's one of the few places where free thought, free speech and free action can take place without people having to face some sort of consequence.

Rather I have found in my long experience in work life that independent thought and action are an anathema to undemocratic corporate institutions and those who feel they should do as those bosses tell them, even if it sacrifices their own long-term interests. Sound familiar?

>"
The reality is that (at least in the case of the ferry workers) this is a load of crap."

The only crap around here is your hollow justifications for suppressing workers' rights in accordance with the dictates of the boss.

The ferry workers had voted to strike (after taking a previous vote to bargain) and had already agreed to essential service staffing level with middle management, when suddenly the BC Liars imposed a full scale back to work order.

The workers defied it, and good on them for doing so. I was covering one of the site meetings after the Liar brought down their authoritarian crap. Many people were scared--afraid that if they defied the order they could be arrested, the government could go after their families (state terror) etc. Some more forward thing workers wanted to simply take over the ferry system, remove the bosses and replace them with an elected management team and keep the system running.

But the despite the views and ideas, everyone clearly agreed they were angry at the government's horrid stance, and felt they had to stand up to, regardless of the risks. There was almost universal consensus to at least give it a try.

Hospital workers voted on a site-by-site basis to defy the order, while still being good sports and maintaining safe essential service levels.

They didn't get to vote on the final compromise between the BC Fed and the regime that stopped any further contracting out, firings, and retroactive wage givebacks in return for a 15 per cent wage rollback. That's why they’re so mad. That's why HEU business rep Chris Allnut, who brokered the deal, was voted out in July.

>"This is because strike votes were always taken before serious negotiations began."

Garbage. There are always preliminary negotiations. In fact the BC Fed reported in 2002 that despite the hostile economic climate in BC, thanks to the BC Liars, over 80 per cent of collective agreements are achieved without a strike vote or job action.

The only time a strike vote takes place before negotiations is if there is not prior negotiation due to poor relations, or little is accomplished during those talks. A legal strike vote force both bosses and workers to take negotiations seriously. As said, most are reached without job action.

>"Wow. What inspirational leadership.
I expect leaders to show leadership, not hide behind the crowd."

Wow! What dishonest and insulting comments! I said the executive was on the line ready to be arrested. They were the ones confronting the media and the cops, as well as the labour board officials. That wasn't hiding behind the crowd. It was taking a stand and a risk on principle--something a line-crossing brown-noser like you wouldn't understand. Don’t worry. I have heard your kind come up with all kinds of excuses and inaccurate statements like this to try to justify cowardly actions.

>I said: "Keep in mind the executive and elected leaders can only advise or recommend to the membership what to do. The members make the ultimate decision. "

>You responded: "Crapola. Have you actually ever been a union member?"

Anyone who says "crapola" to my initial post is either ignorant to just a liar. The fact is this is THE way legitimate unions operate, and every union I have been in, including the two am in now, operate exactly this way.

I have attended many many union meetings where leadership recommendations were voted down; where elected officers were recalled and staff fired; and entire executives being wiped out in union elections, among many other activities that are the hallmark of democratic interaction.

Any organization that claims to be a union is expected to operate this way, otherwise it is declared by labour bodies to be a corrupt or boss-dominated organization--a "rat union" in labour jargon; a "union of convenience" in legal terms.

>"I am pointing out that unions, like other organizations, make mistakes and should be called to account for them. "

Yes they can be. Just because a democratic cooperative association of workers, which is in fact what union is, is a good thing doesn't mean it's error proof or not subject to the same outside corrupt influences that anyone else is.

As to being held to account, read my above examples. Never mind the heavy handed fines, mass arrests, decertification, mass firings, harassment and ridicule, etc. that many union have to endure--whether they make a mistake or not.

>"The union members go to work to get paid, same as everyone else. If the paycheques stop, so does the work. Don't make it sound so noble."

Nobility has nothing to do with it. It's pure economic fact that public sector workers go to work and create the services the public needs and pays for. If these people were forced to work for free, very little would get done, and the economy would shrink drastically since these many people would no longer be able to afford to invest their consumer and tax dollars to making it happen. Another economic fact.

>"I believe that in many cases, unions have already pushed their members wages well past the point where if true socialism were enacted, the wages would have to drop. Once a union reaches that point, it ceases to be a social cause and becomes simply an interest group."

This of course is total nonsense. Wages are only part of the total cost/revenue of any business or service--and most often they are far from being the biggest part.

The fact is working people have to create enough market value via their labour and skill, regardless of what sector they're in, to cover the costs of profits, senior management salaries and bonuses, bank interest, and a whole variety of corporate costs involved in doing business. What they take home in wages and benefits is only part of the total hard value they create.

How would "real socialism" (I assume you mean the democratic ownership/control of businesses and capital by workers and their communities), where many of these other costs would eliminated or re-absorbed into what workers are paid, force them to lower their wages.

>"every union wants to compare its situation to that of 19th century coal miners but most of these comparisons are hogwash."

More fallacy. Most unions today don't compare their situations to the 19th century. Nowhere do I see that happen. What I do see are references made to what it was like in the 19th century and how it could happen again if we don't exercise due vigilance. I also see 19th century comparisons made in industries that are mostly non-union with good reason (farm workers, immigrant or illegal textile workers, what goes on in the Third World, etc.)

Now, on to the underlying theme I notice in Rebel's post:

>"I'm not apologizing for anyone, least of all myself."

>"Point out one logical, dispassionate, reasonable argument of why what I did was wrong."

>"Does everyone here believe there is never, ever a situation where the executive is wrong, so wrong, that it is proper and just for individuals to exercise civil disobedience against the union?"

My statements above should give you a good impression of why I think it was wrong. I won't delve further into your personal situation because it seems apparent, whether you admit it or not, that you feel bad about crossing your own union's picket line, and are worried that it might be wrong, even though you may have thought it was right at the time, and are now throwing all kinds of crap at people who don't believe in such practices.

Exercising civil disobedience against your working colleagues is quite a bit different than against a government or corporation. The latter are institutions of undemocratic wealth and power, paid for in one way or another by working people, that have more legal rights than workers both individually and collectively, and can impose their will on others.

The former are people who are largely disenfranchised and in one way or another are legally subordites to these institutions.

Workers defying a corporate or government order involves standing up to a superior unrepresentative force and resisting its undemocratic process--that is a cornerstone of just about every battle against tyranny in history.

Crossing a picket line to continue to work for these institutions only strengthens the position of these institutions and legitimizes their undemocratic existence.

But I think you know all this, Rebel. You say you have nothing to apologize for, yet your inflated and inaccurate statements and insults tell me this is a real crisis of conscience for you. I know it would be for me.

quote:

---

Your questions were loaded with inaccurate rhetoric, and you damn well know. I simply called you on it by taking some time to respond to them.

BTW, "reign down with.." is not a spelling error. It's an actual English term that means to try to dominate. It has nothing to do with rain. So far, the only "sic" thing around here is you.

---

quote:

---

I didn't even know until this point you had crossed a picket line.

---

Well that's my fault for assuming that you'd read the rest of the forum before spouting off. I've stated this twice before. In my first post, the first line of the second paragraph says "I crossed a picket line once." Given the scattered nature of your comments, I can understand how that statement my confuse you.

First of all, I'm well aware that 'reign' is an English word - I just don't think you've used it in the correct sense. If someone were to say to me they want to 'dominate down with wisdom', I would be a bit confused by what they meant on account of the grammar.

Second, I still don't understand how I would 'rain down' or 'reign down' wisdom with questions, no matter how leading they might see to you to be.

quote:

---

Anyone who has attended a serious union meeting where grave concerns dominated has experience the wide range of views and debate from a huge cross section of people. It's one of the few places where free thought, free speech and free action can take place without people having to face some sort of consequence.

---

I've attended plenty of union meetings and frankly, at some of them, I'd be afraid of physical harm if I were to voice the views I'm expressing here. For a period of time, I was one of the tiny percentage of union members who actually bothered to attend union meetings. At least half of the time was spent resolving internecine disputes. There were regular occurrences of union members suing one another over statements made. We even had one component of the union sue the rest of the union. Quite the bastion of free speech.

quote:

---

Rather I have found in my long experience in work life that independent thought and action are an anathema to undemocratic corporate institutions and those who feel they should do as those bosses tell them, even if it sacrifices their own long-term interests. Sound familiar?

---

If your point is that unions are more democratic than corporations, that's true but it has nothing to do with this forum.

quote:

---

The ferry workers had voted to strike (after taking a previous vote to bargain) and had already agreed to essential service staffing level with middle management, when suddenly the BC Liars imposed a full scale back to work order.

---

Not really. The ferry workers voted for striking after a short period of negotiations. The union executive agreed to essential staff levels with the Corporation (not just middle management). After several days of striking, the BC government did indeed order a cooling off period after a number of increasingly serious incidents involving the public. In one particularly bizarre incident at Horseshoe Bay (North Vancouver for those of you in other provinces), a group of irate passengers that had been waiting on the tarmac for 24 hours blockaded another group of passengers who had just disembarked from the ferry and were attempting to leave. Against this sort of anarchic background, I don't think a 2 or 3 month cooling off period was extreme.

The union responded by completely shutting down a vital transportation link. I remember hearing horror stories about parents frantically trying to take their kids to Vancouver for cancer treatments. Tell me again how concerned the union members are about the public.

quote:

---

Garbage. There are always preliminary negotiations.

---

You weren't there. In the union I belonged to, strike votes took place in the early part of negotiations and the union inevitably put the word out that they needed a strike mandate to get the company to bargain. In this light, the strike votes themselves were somewhat dishonest.

quote:

---

I said the executive was on the line ready to be arrested.

---

quote:

---

As to being held to account, read my above examples.

---

quote:

---

How would "real socialism" (I assume you mean the democratic ownership/control of businesses and capital by workers and their communities), where many of these other costs would eliminated or re-absorbed into what workers are paid, force them to lower their wages.

---

Logically, not everybody can make above average wages. If truce socialism were enacted, everyone would get the same amount. Union members that already make above average wages (and that's probably most of them), would see the amount they get paid go down not up.

quote:

---

whether you admit it or not, that you feel bad about crossing your own union's picket line, and are worried that it might be wrong, even though you may have thought it was right at the time, and are now throwing all kinds of crap at people who don't believe in such practices.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your point about democracy is also very expressed and the notion of rule by majority. History tells us that freedom is better served by rule by majority. That is some retrictions on the notion of absolute freedom for the collective benefit provides for more freedom overall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. According to this, I was absolutely correct when I crossed the illegal picket line and went to work

---

No, sorry, no thanks are required.

Your conclusion inverts the premise.

Our right to go wherever we like as citizens is prevented by the collective bargaining rights of the members. If you were part of the collective agreement when you crossed then you acting unlawfully and illegally. You were strikebreaking.

If you were a hockey player would you cross the picket line and play in an empty arena with no other players? That would be idiotic. You might argue that you should get paid for it etc., etc but who would listen?

The same is true with any other organization even a society. Democracy does not permit you to play in an empty arena if you don't agree with its laws, you don't get paid for breaking them or abusing those who were in the majority.

Too many people think that because they have an opinion and can defend it with reasoned arguments and even vehemently believe they are right that they are not bound by the majority. That is a false reasoning.

Simply because you have a point of view and it differs from the majority does not mean you have the right to implement it over the different plans and ideas of the majority. This is what makes George Bush's presidency illegitimate. But it is also a good example of the tyranny of rule by simple majority.

But even in the PR state we fight for, the will of the majority will prevail ahead of the interest group, lobbyist or individual.

Union democracy is no different.

[ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Boinker ]

quote:

---

Our right to go wherever we like as citizens is prevented by the collective bargaining rights of the members. If you were part of the collective agreement when you crossed then you acting unlawfully and illegally. You were strikebreaking.

---

If the strike called by my union were in accordance with the law, what you say would be true. In fact it wasn't. That put me in a position of having to decide which of the two majorities I would respect - the majority of the union or the majority of the province.

quote:

---

But even in the PR state we fight for, the will of the majority will prevail ahead of the interest group, lobbyist or individual.

---

This creates a problem and I think that as a result collective bargaining rights must have constitutional protection.

quote:

---

If your point is that unions are more democratic than corporations, that's true but it has nothing to do with this forum.

---

1. Thanks to those who attempted to clarify the meaning of scab, but I'm still not totally sure: when you (DonnyB originally, but anyone else, too) use "scab" do you mean a non-conforming union member who crosses a picket line to work, in spite of a strike, or any replacement worker (union member or not) brought in during a strike?

2. Either way, although I understand the source of the negative emotions scabbing causes, it still looks to me like scabs are the targets of anger that should really be directed at the people and circumstances which caused the strike to begin with.

3. The movie Billy Elliot did a pretty good job of dramatizing some of these situations. T'weren't just about the tutus.

4. The notion "Right to work" looks about as goofy to me as the notion "Right to a job".

[ 03 October 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

quote:

---

It became relevant when you tried to argue that your alleged (cyber-space claims-impossible to verify) experiences of undemocratic union meetings were indicative of strike votes in general.

---

There's a lot stated and implied here so I'd like to split this into three replies:
1) As you pointed out, cyber-space anecdotes are impossible to verify. I do notice, however, that most of the anecdotes cited in Rabble are not challenged, probably because most of the readers agree with the points being made.

2) I don't think I said that the union meetings were undemocratic. Some of the meetings (the ones that occurred during negotiations) degenerated into enormous screaming matches. It was these ones that I gave up on attending because I didn't feel comfortable. Even speaking of crossing picket lines in front of 500 irate blue collar union members isn't something I'd recommend to anyone.

3) I wasn't speaking of strike votes in general, only the ones in which I participated. They were always done early in the negotiation process and were never repeated. We were always told to vote for strike to ensure the union had a strong mandate to negotiate. I stand behind what I said about the strike votes being essentially dishonest and therefore undemocratic. And I think any reasonable person would agree that people voting for a strike are thinking a legal strike.

quote:

---

And I find it hard to believe that you were so intimidated at the meeting that you were afraid to speak your mind, but you had no problem scabbing and then working with the same people later.

---

First of all, I had a great deal of problem crossing the picket line, not because I did something wrong but because of the strong emotions involved. I was sickened by the position in which I was placed to the point where I seriously considered walking out the door and not coming back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:
when you (DonnyB originally, but anyone else, too) use "scab" do you mean a non-conforming union member who crosses a picket line to work, in spite of a strike, or any replacement worker (union member or not) brought in during a strike?

2. Either way, although I understand the source of the negative emotions scabbing causes, it still looks to me like scabs are the targets of anger that should really be directed at the people and circumstances which caused the strike to begin with.

---

(Edited to actually add a reply ... sorry!)

My understanding is that a "scab" used to refer strictly to a "replacement worker" - an older term for an employee union member who crossed the line and went to work is "yellowleg" - but "scab" now seems to be used for both.

My own experience from the two OPS strikes in 1996 and 2002 - (1) we had some people cross and go into work but no "replacement workers" as such; (2) the reality is that people's reactions to scabs varied and depended on who was scabbing and their circumstances - also, we found that scabs didn't really hurt us as a whole (although some locals were badly hurt).

In 1996, one scab on the first day of the strike was a steward who, the day before, had actually persuaded several people not to scab! That person's never been forgiven (by me, at any rate.) I also know people who held out as long as they could, then went back a day or two before the strike ended. The attitude towards them is different.

[ 04 October 2004: Message edited by: Wellington ]

>"I was one of the tiny percentage of union members who actually bothered to attend union meetings. At least half of the time was spent resolving internecine disputes. There were regular occurrences of union members suing one another over statements made. We even had one component of the union sue the rest of the union. Quite the bastion of free speech."

Actually, it does sound like a bastion of free speech, since there obviously a lot to be said and a lot of people willing to say it. Unfortunately, it sounds like there was a lot of frustration, anger and desperation among the membership (your reference to worrying about getting into a fight if you said something unpopular certainly shows this).

I have seen this before in some situations too. But this wasn't because these were bad people and certainly not because they were organized as a union. Rather, the frustration over boss intransigence and oppression, the decline of a business or industry and feeling they could do nothing about it, or a clash between various groups of workers over what direction to take the union, or especially if there was a problem with a pension or benefit plan or some other union program that wasn't been properly administered.

I would guess it was the same in your situation.

>"If your point is that unions are more democratic than corporations, that's true but it has nothing to do with this forum."

Ah but it is! One of my points was that if workers had at least substantially more democratic say in the running of businesses and services, they would be much less likely to have to resort to job action to correct an issue.

My reference to union-sponsored enterprises and worker co-ops, owner-ops, etc. was to show this.

>"The union executive agreed to essential staff levels with the Corporation (not just middle management). After several days of striking, the BC government did indeed order a cooling off period after a number of increasingly serious incidents involving the public. In one particularly bizarre incident at Horseshoe Bay (North Vancouver for those of you in other provinces), a group of irate passengers that had been waiting on the tarmac for 24 hours blockaded another group of passengers who had just disembarked from the ferry and were attempting to leave. Against this sort of anarchic background, I don't think a 2 or 3 month cooling off period was extreme."

Not only was it extreme, it was downright vicious and disrespectful of both the union workers and the riding public.

I use the ferry system regularly. Fights between passengers, while fortunately not commonplace, are not unique to that situation. The government was using this as an excuse.

Keep in mind it was the Liar regime that tried to sell off BC Ferries by stealth, after repeatedly promising not to do so, that started the whole conflict.

The new CEO brought in to carry out the sell-off and eventually start hacking off services and routes demanded huge concession (he needed those to carry this out). Obviously they were rejected. The CEO refused to budge on his position, and workers, after negotiating essential service levels, went on strike. Reduced service was kept and everyone, albeit delayed, was guaranteed to get to ride.

The back to work order was intended to break the union, since a cooling off period would have done nothing to stop the government from butchering the ferry system. Even BC Ferries managers I spoke with couldn't stand what the government and CEO were up to.

The workers were backed into a corner of either defy the government all out, or give it all up.

>"I remember hearing horror stories about parents frantically trying to take their kids to Vancouver for cancer treatments. Tell me again how concerned the union members are about the public."

First, some of those stories were inflated by the pro-Liberal Global Canwest media monopoly (I work in that field. I see this shit go on all the time).

Second, the workers were, as said, backed into a corner of either fight or allow the government to smash the ferry system. As it is right now, the union collective agreement is one major hurdle stopping the government from outright selling off the ferry system and, as the commission report said, gutting services, raising ferry rates and eliminating some secondary routes altogether. The evil and idiotic move the Liars to build new ferries oversees (and the insulting excuses they offer) are a revenge/intimidation tactic against the union.

Now I ask you, given the bigger picture, who is more in line with defending the public interest: the workers who, despite a temporary service disruption in their fight with the regime, provide the services and are pushing to keep it public, or the government, who trying to sell it off and gut service?

Once again, I say that if BC Ferries had a more democratic structure, or perhaps even be a co-op utility with union representation of the board, or some other similar structure that gave workers a greater say in how things are and were to go, they likely would have to strike at all.

>"You weren't there. In the union I belonged to, strike votes took place in the early part of negotiations and the union inevitably put the word out that they needed a strike mandate to get the company to bargain. In this light, the strike votes themselves were somewhat dishonest."

You're right I wasn't there. I didn't need to be since you made my point for me: the strike vote took place AFTER negotiations began; the union negotiating committee (not the "union" since the union is the collective organization of the members) asked for a strike mandate to push the company bosses (not the "company" as a whole since that would include the union workers) to negotiate. In the same light as you shine, this makes strike votes totally legitimate and honest, since that's what they are for.

>"Instead they quietly passed the word down the phone tree to avoid culpability.

Executive members are usually the first arrested, whether initiate the strike or not. SO this point is moot.

>"I held my union to account personally by refusing to participate in an illegal strike."

No, you didn't Rebel. You may think you did. But that's not how it works. How you hold your "union"--or more likely that leadership is what you're referring to--accountable is by expressing your views, organizing and discussing with your colleagues and getting people to vote to chance the way the organization does things, or vote in new leaders.

All you did was add strength and re-legitimize the undemocratic institution or bureaucracy you work for while showing disrespect for your working colleagues--that their interests and concerns weren't as important as the government/bosses' authority. And that is really sad.

In addition, as others have said here, workers standing up to government or corporate authority as part of the labour movement has been a cornerstone method of winning rights and freedoms and democratic reforms themselves. I think it's critical to not only honour those traditions, but to continue to do this when the situation warrants, to remind us all that we are the one who work and pay for these institutions and should not become complacent given their authority.

>"If truce socialism were enacted, everyone would get the same amount."

Hold it! Where did you get this? Who said that socialist economics mean everyone gets the same amount? Jobs that require more training, more schooling, more risk to self and others, more time away from family, etc. all quite understandably affect pay scale. In fact, that idea is quite socialistic. Of course, there so many factors and variables in so many different types of work, it can be hard to assess them all in determining pay. But nonetheless, there's nothing anti-socialist about the idea.

>"Are you psychic? Do your special powers work on the stock market? "

quote:

---

1) As you pointed out, cyber-space anecdotes are impossible to verify. I do notice, however, that most of the anecdotes cited in Rabble are not challenged, probably because most of the readers agree with the points being made.

---

True. I expressed my doubts because:
1.) It sounds like the blanket union-bashing one hears all the time.

and

2.) It was the exact same stuff said by right-wingers in my union who complained about an undemocratic, unrepresentative executive, disregarding the wishes of the membership. Those guys showed up once in a while and lost every vote. They'd claim to represent the silent, unattending meetings, majority.
We got a strong majority for a strike mandate (which many including myself thought was for an immediate walk-out) and during the actual strike, management made us vote on a final offer, which was resoundingly rejected by the majority.
All the talk from the right-wingers (who scabbed) about who really represented the majority went out the window there.

Finally, I thought you were grasping at straws in response to "Klingon's" fact-based claims that the leadership walks the line and if necessary does the time with the membership, as opposed to "hiding behind the membership" or what-not during an illegal strike.

quote:

---

If so what is the repricussions and would the union support a worker refusing designation?

---