And although I don't like having to veer into the street to avoid the mob, I try not to begrudge them. I think that collective bargaining is probably the only way to guarantee a fair relationship between employees and employers, so if striking is what they feel like they have to do sometimes, then well... fine.

But when I read the signs, sometimes I wonder what it's all in aid of. I understand the Aliant ones that said "it's not about money" and "priceless during Juan, worthless now", I understood that they were intended to clarify the union's position to the public, who might have seen it all as selfish and petulant if not informed about what exactly was at issue.

What I didn't understand though was when the signs began to bear slogans related to striking in general. It really struck me as weird to see a woman wearing a sandwich board that said "IF YOU SEE A SCAB, PICK IT!"

Like whoah hang on... who are those signs for? Who are you talking to? Surely "scabs" are YOUR problem, aren't they? I mean if the signs are meant to communicate the issues to the public, what do "scabs" have to do with anything? I mean if your boss is treating you like shit, that's one thing, I've got your back. But you can keep your intra-union politics to yourselves, thanks. If that's what you're taking up my sidewalks to picket, then YOU can veer into traffic and let ME past.

And it got me thinking a little. I mean, I can only think so deeply about this because I'm just a 25 year old high school graduate who focused on arts. And not even the respectable arts, just band mainly. I don't know much about economics or labour or what-have-you. But it did get me thinking about the vitriol I've seen directed toward "scabs" from unions. Even the word itself, that's a nasty thing to call anyone. The hatred seems almost religious, indeed it reminds me at its worst of Fred Phelps' God Hates Fags brigades.

There's always talk of how odious they are, how disgusting. Isn't that a lot of agitprop? I mean aren't they generally just average joes who don't feel like they can survive the downtime of a strike? People with kids, stuff like that? I mean, I think I understand that breaking ranks undermines the bargaining strength of the union, but I find it difficult to reconcile that practical exasperation with the kind of hate speech that winds up getting tossed around.

So what's the deal? I ask out of curiosity, I'm truly innocent when it comes to the workings of such relationships and I don't understand how it comes down to what it comes down to.

quote:

---

mean aren't they generally just average joes who don't feel like they can survive the downtime of a strike? People with kids, stuff like that? I mean, I think I understand that breaking ranks undermines the bargaining strength of the union, but I find it difficult to reconcile that practical exasperation with the kind of hate speech that winds up getting tossed around.

---

Well I think the problem is that the other joes on the picket line also have kids and bills and whatnot, but have still decided to take a stand. Further, that was a democratic decision of the workers as a whole. Yet the "scab" decides, on their own, that his needs should trump those of everyone else. I think that's what really pisses off the people who are out on the line. It's about solidarity (and in the scab's case, betrayal thereof). That may be an emotion that is hard to understand until you've experienced it, but it cuts pretty deep.

The closest comparison I can think of is if you have ever had a partner who cheated on you. With your worst enemy.

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Which Side Are You On?

As other posters have said the anger that strikers feel towards scabs might be hard to understand unless you've been in that situation yourself.

Making a decision to go on strike is not one that is taken lightly. The fact is that 98% of all collective bargaining agreements are settled strike-free.

Workers don't necessarily settle contracts strike-free because they're all happy as pigs in shit with what they are being offered. Especially these days. Its just that the thought of going on strike in the hope that you'll do a little bit better is incredibly frightening so you settle for much less then they might think is fair.

So when workers vote to go on strike its a very tough decision. Don't forget that when you're on strike you're not getting paid by your employer. You may get strike pay, but its usually very little and in a long and protracted strike by a large group of workers a union may end up exhausting its strike fund.

Striking workers will find that they maybe can't pay the rent, mortgage slaves may find they lose their house, car, can't feed the kids adequately, the bills aren't getting paid etc.

So when one of your co-workers breaks solidarity and scabs on you it is an incredible feeling of betrayal. Think of how you'd feel if you found that your "significant other" was cheating on you. Now multiply that by a factor of ten and you'll get an idea of how strikers feel about scabs.

As a musician, you know very well how many songs have been written over the centuries about "cheating lovers". Why? Because its a way to express those feelings of betrayal and despair.

Art, in some cases songs and in this particular sense picket signs is being used to express the feelings of betrayal and despair that scabs cause.

Anyway - I simply can't get that worked up to start name calling etc. Life is too damn short to devote time to such hostility and negativity. It's a total waste of time.

I find those who like to toss around the word scab, in my local at least, are the gossipy, complaining, us-and-them attitude types.

1. Not only are scabs (in the sense above) breaking solidarity, and benefiting by breaking a pretty serious social covenant, they are also _free riders_ in that they will benefit from any ground gained by a strike wihtout having to suffer through the strike themselves. That, I can see, would be totally galling.

2. As to why the signs: I'd guess there are three possible purposes:

-to remind non-picketing workers (who maybe disagree with the strike, and who are therefore doing the more honorable thing of staying home or finding work elsewhere) that scabbing would be a betrayal.

-to intimidate fellow picketers who might otherwise be tempted to break solidatiry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CYL688:

Anyway - I simply can't get that worked up to start name calling etc. Life is too damn short to devote time to such hostility and negativity. It's a total waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Something to consider about "scabs" is that they are not immune from retribution. Our local has several ways they deal with these folks, although it may take years for that to become evident for example when the person seeks union representation in a grievance, or finds themselves in a job competition where a union executive member has input, etc.

---

That you have to be careful about, though, because unions still owe a duty of fair representation to all members in the bargaining unit. It's important that unions take this duty seriously, both because its the law and because all union members suffer if the contract isn't enforced vigorously and equally for each and every one of them.

So you say these scabs are benefitting from your sacrifices, eh?

So you say these scabs don't have an excuse because, while things may be tough for them, they're tough for you too, eh?

So you feel betrayed that they're not shouldering their end of the load, and because they're enjoying the benefits of something you're working for, eh?

And finally, you say there are "ways" of ensuring that they know they're scabs, and that they'd better get with the program if they don't want to be ostracized, eh?

quote:

---

I'm sure this will start a big ol' shitstorm, and Dr. Conway will have to come by and accuse me of being heartless and cheap, but I think the similarities are worth looking at. And for the record, I'm not trying to sell my own opinions here, just pointing out the similarities between one group and the other.

---

I think thou doth protest too much, Magoo, if you write such a provocative post then claim "you're not trying to sell your own opinions here." If you're really not trying to convince us of your point of view, then that would mean what you're doing is trolling, wouldn't it?

I'd like to engage in the substance of your post, though.

quote:

---

I find the over-the-top anger that gets directed at "scabs" (along with the attempt to dehumnize them by calling them such) to be interesting, because I think it has parallels with why so many Canadians are down on "the poor", specifically those on social assistance.

So you say these scabs are benefitting from your sacrifices, eh?

So you say these scabs don't have an excuse because, while things may be tough for them, they're tough for you too, eh?

So you feel betrayed that they're not shouldering their end of the load, and because they're enjoying the benefits of something you're working for, eh?

And finally, you say there are "ways" of ensuring that they know they're scabs, and that they'd better get with the program if they don't want to be ostracized, eh?

---

I think the difference between verbal attacks and social sanction against scabs, as opposed general disdain and attacks aimed at "dehumanizing 'the poor'" is not in the attitude but in the function. The function of a social stigma against scabbing is very simple: to discourage someone from crossing a picket line. If you don't want to bear the social stigma, don't cross the line.

Efforts by the Right to stigmatize poor people have very little do to with the individual acts of poor persons themselves. What exactly is a poor person supposed to do to escape the sanction?

"Get a job!" I suppose that's the rhetorical invective in response. But we all know that's a lot more complicated than it sounds.

The real point of the attacks and social sanctions against poor people is not to change those poor people's behavior. It's to let rich people feel better about cutting away the social supports that allow those poor people to live.

Yes some scabs argue that they really need the jobs and the good pay the employer is offering them to break the strike. Well you can make a lot of money shooting people or selling drugs to schoolchildren, too. But that doesn't mean you should do it.

quote:

---

The big difference between picking on scabs and picking on "poor people" in general is when you scab you're not posing some theoretical burden on some abstract, aggregate group of "taxpayers." You're actually taking someone else's job away. That's just wrong

---

Except of course when you're "scabbing" in your own job, i.e. crossing the picket line to do your own job. Then you're not taking anyone's job away, you're just imposing a burden on the abstract, aggregate group of your fellow union members.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

That you have to be careful about, though, because unions still owe a duty of fair representation to all members in the bargaining unit. It's important that unions take this duty seriously, both because its the law and because all union members suffer if the contract isn't enforced vigorously and equally for each and every one of them.

---

It happens though... think of a local where there's only one person with grievance handling experience and there are multiple grievances... a person can handle only so much work right? Paperwork can get "lost" in an inbox etc. A union rep might go the extra distance fighting a case for a member in good standing and give only the most basic representation to members who crossed the line. I could be wrong but I believe "scabs" can be formally labelled as members-not-in-good-standing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publically Displayed Name:
But the vibe I've been getting off babble is that the real invective is reserved for the non-conforming union brethren and cisterns.

---

I think that's a fair comment, except that I'd question whether "non-conforming" - which many rabble participants would see as a "good thing" - is an appropriate term, since it has connotations of a positive moral choice.

Having been through two strikes, I've seen strikebreaking (which I'll use as a more neutral term in place of "scabbing"). But I never saw anyone go in to work as a matter of principle, because they thought "it's the right thing to do".

The motive is sometimes "good", in the sense that the decision seems driven by necessity (e.g., financial desperation/unsympathetic spouse threatening divorce). More often, in my experience, the motive is "bad" - basically a selfish "screw you, I'm all right Jack" attitude. (For example, it's difficult to feel any sympathy for a strikebreaker who stands on the other side of the window and waves their paycheque at your picket line.)

In our last strike, I didn't (for the most part) confront or say nasty things to strikebreakers. But I also didn't and wouldn't waste time worrying what other people say to them or about them. Save the sympathy (and solidarity) for the people who have the guts to stay on the picket line and take a stand.

We can reject Magoo's attempt to equate saying nasty things to strikebreakers with an ideological hostility to people who are poor. In addition to the points made by robbie_dee above, it's not logical to argue that, because there are similarities/parallels between two phenomena, they must therefore be the same phenomena and have the same explanation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wellington:

I think that's a fair comment, except that I'd question whether "non-conforming" - which many rabble participants would see as a "good thing" - is an appropriate term, since it has connotations of a positive moral choice.

---

Flip reaction (quoting Michael Nesmith during his first Monkees screen test): That's your hang up, man.

By which I mean, I've been trying to find clear, neutralish expressions which demarcate the difference between union members who continue go to work after a legal strike is on, and non-union replacement workers brought in by management for a duration of a strike.

"Scab" as its been used around here has previously confused me, and yellowleg doesn't seem too current.

Strikebreakers, while sufficiently neutral, I think, could apply to both categories. Strikebreaking union-member might work, although it suggests the person in question has, as a goal, the breaking of the strike, which I don't think is accurate.

(I don't have ahuge problem with the term scab, I just find it's not clear enough sometimes).

quote:

---

But I never saw anyone go in to work as a matter of principle, because they thought "it's the right thing to do".

---

Have to bow to your first-hand knowledge, I ain't gots none. However, I'll throw out a hypothesis: that some union-members are resentful about having to join a union to get/keep their job, about union dues, about having their fate decided by a collective, and that those people might intentionally and literally strike-break on principal--to them, non-conforming, complete _with_ positive connotations--to show that the individual cannot always be bossed around by the group/mob.*

Of course, that basically boils down to "screw you", but (I'd argue) so do many strikers' actions toward management/employer.

*I'd easily believe that these people are in the minority of strikebreakers, but I bet they're in the majority of the people who wave paychecks at picket lines.

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

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

quote:

---

If you're really not trying to convince us of your point of view, then that would mean what you're doing is trolling, wouldn't it?

---

Me? Actually all I meant was that my post wasn't to sell you on my opinions of either scabs or people on social assistance. I suppose I am, by definition, trying to sell my idea that the response to both is similar.

quote:

---

"Get a job!" I suppose that's the rhetorical invective in response. But we all know that's a lot more complicated than it sounds.

---

I would agree. But why then would it be any easier to say "Don't cross the line!", as though that is an entirely uncomplicated choice?

quote:

---

Yes some scabs argue that they really need the jobs and the good pay the employer is offering them to break the strike. Well you can make a lot of money shooting people or selling drugs to schoolchildren, too. But that doesn't mean you should do it.

---

I've seen economic necessity used to excuse shoplifting. I've seen it used to at least partially justify social assistance fraud. It's often seen as the perfectly justifiable root cause of many Canadians' rage toward the government. But no matter what, no matter how dire the need, it's no excuse for crossing a picket line? That's the one sacred social convention that's supposed to matter more than food, if it comes to it?

quote:

---

The big difference between picking on scabs and picking on "poor people" in general is when you scab you're not posing some theoretical burden on some abstract, aggregate group of "taxpayers." You're actually taking someone else's job away.

---

I agree with you that that's the biggest difference. But I still see similarities, not in terms of what scabs or the poor have in common, but rather in the very emotional-loaded response that unionists and society have to them respectively.

quote:

---

Then you're not taking anyone's job away, you're just imposing a burden on the abstract, aggregate group of your fellow union members.

---

This is also true. Can anyone explain the extreme vitriol that awaits someone who is NOT taking someone else's job away? Why isn't their economic necessity any kind of defense?

quote:

---

The one important difference is the contract unionized workers make with their fellows

---

If that were in fact the biggest difference then we'd expect to see more vitriol reserved for union members who cross the line, and thus break their covenant, and less vitriol for an "import" worker who's made no such contract, but I don't think that's the case.

quote:

---

We can reject Magoo's attempt to equate saying nasty things to strikebreakers with an ideological hostility to people who are poor.

---

Whenever I compare two things, someone inevitably thinks I'm equating them. I'm not suggesting they're the same, I'm suggesting there are similarities worth considering. And in this case I'm not comparing scabs to people on social assistance, I'm comparing the reaction of unionists toward scabs to the reaction of many Canadians toward those on social assistance. Pointing out that being poor isn't the same as scabbing doesn't address that any.

quote:

---

because there are similarities/parallels between two phenomena, they must therefore be the same phenomena and have the same explanation.

---

I bit off what I could chew, but you're stuffing more in my mouth. I'm not making the case that if there are similarities then everything's exactly the same. I'm saying there are similarities. There could be more. Why stop as soon as someone can point out that the two non-identical things I'm comparing are, in fact, non-identical?

What got me thinking about the two was noticing the incredible anger and resentment that so many unionists seem to have toward scabs, displayed on this thread and another recent thread, as well as the "tough shit" attitude toward any kind of economic necessity. This seems to be the only time that progressives will say "I don't want to hear your sob story. I don't care if your kids are wearing plastic bags as boots. You made an agreement and now your only consideration must be honoring it!"

First of all, to attach an epithet to someone isn't "dehumanizing" them. Technically, that requires genetic manipulation I think.

Certainly, two groups of people with differences can hurl insults and cast aspersions upon one another. When the two groups are in actual competition, as opposed to being merely broad, general categories, like "rich" and "poor," there will obviously be more heat in the things that they say about each other.

Magoo's quite right. Scabs get reviled by unionists, poor people get reviled by various conservative groups. In both cases there's a separation and opposition of interest. In the case of the poor, they are reviled by already-wealthy groups which want to get their hands on money that might go to social spending, or by groups who have been persuaded to hate by the wealthy ones. Sometimes the same wealthy groups are getting a second agenda in, of misdirection, to avoid letting the middle class notice where most of the money is in fact going. In the case of scabs, they are reviled by people who feel it likely the scabs' pursuit of what is normally their paycheck is likely to result in their paycheck being smaller forever more, in their strike lasting longer so they are missing their paycheck for longer, or both.
Is there a moral equivalence? I would suggest not, for various reasons that have been pointed out. The poor are generally not poor by choice, scabs may be driven in some way to choose scabbing but they are nonetheless making a choice. Those who drive the anger against the poor are generally rich; there is something distinctly immoral about championing your interests over those of someone far worse off than you. This is especially true to the extent that it's a scapegoating/distraction ploy to take the majority's attention off the fact that you take far more of their money than the poor do.
In the case of scabs, there are two categories. Those angry at fellow union members who cross the line are in, basically, exactly the same situation; there will be some variation, but when one is in the same bunch drawing similar paychecks, you're certainly not looking at a general case of those better off going after those worse off. And they're part of your group; the reason they're now outsiders of sorts is that they betrayed it. They busted the deal. Anger is a normal result.

In the case of outside replacement workers, they may indeed be poorer, and they don't owe the unionists anything particularly. But there's aggravating factors there: They tend to be a wholesale replacement, capable of doing much more damage. Outside replacement workers could mean your frickin' job's down the drain; at a minimum, they mean your strike's now bloody meaningless. They're not just annoying, they're doom. And, OK, maybe they're desperate and you can't ask them to think ahead, but really--they think by helping break unions they're doing themselves any favours in the long run? At this point, the union members themselves have desperation going, as well as a seething frustration that these stupid bastards are blowing away the chances of workers everywhere to get a decent deal. I think if you can forgive or understand some impoverished person joining a work force that's screwing other workers over, probably directly depriving them of their livelihood, then you should also understand that the person they just screwed is going to get kinda passionate about trying to save their livelihood.
It may be OK for Mr. Magoo from his godlike perspective to say those scabs are just driven by desperation, but he can't expect the equally-driven-by-desperation strikers to take the same view.
Meanwhile, the rich who vilify the poor are hardly driven by desperation to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
First of all, to attach an epithet to someone isn't "dehumanizing" them. Technically, that requires genetic manipulation I think.

---

Whoo boy do I disagree with that.

Epithets which are frequently used to dehumanize:
Whore
Nigger
Slut
Murderer
Collateral
White Trash
Faggot
...and many more.

It really wasn't an important point. (hence the emoticon.)

The important thing is that it is obvious that people will tend to be angry at, and complain about other people who they think are hurting them. This isn't a significant realization.

Some people are angry at scabs.

Some people are angry at con-artists.

Some people are angry at murderers for killing their families.

Some people are angry at immigrants stealing their jobs.

Some people are angry at feminists for preventing them from getting laid. (layed?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by CYL688:

It happens though... think of a local where there's only one person with grievance handling experience and there are multiple grievances... a person can handle only so much work right? Paperwork can get "lost" in an inbox etc. A union rep might go the extra distance fighting a case for a member in good standing and give only the most basic representation to members who crossed the line. I could be wrong but I believe "scabs" can be formally labelled as members-not-in-good-standing.

.

---

quote:

---

Apparently those who crossed the line (the scabs) lose their status as members-in-good-standing and are not permitted to vote in union business, for example on the proposed contract, or in union elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:

This also means that the union is no longer entitled to collect union dues for that person. A union cannot refuse to provide representation but continue to collect dues.

---

quote:

---

What a sensible person would do would be to look at the bases of peoples' anger and decide if they have a valid case. Not lump justifiable anger in with unjustifiable anger and chide, 'tsk, tsk, can't we all get along?'

---

That would be great if we all agreed on which anger is "justified" and which isn't.

Meanwhile, being angry at social assistance recipients who you believe are squandering your hard-earned tax dollars is justified, and being angry at a fellow union member who's forced by economic conditions to continue working while on strike is unjustified.

All members of the bargaining unit (that is, all those who receive the benefits of a negotiated settlement) must pay dues to the union.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, being angry at social assistance recipients who you believe are squandering your hard-earned tax dollars is justified, and being angry at a fellow union member who's forced by economic conditions to continue working while on strike is unjustified.

Work with that.

---

quote:

---

If that's your opinion, Magoo, then why don't you make an argument to justify it?

---

quote:

---

Unions have a legal duty of fair representation to their members. If someone has a grievance and the union refuses to deal with it, that person has a right to complain to the labour relations boad.
All members of the bargaining unit (that is, all those who receive the benefits of a negotiated settlement) must pay dues to the union.

But they don't have to join the union (well, it depends on the union's constitution); you can be a member of the bargaining unit but opt out of union membership - which means you can vote in a strike vote (as is your legal right) but not, say, for members of the union executive or other regular union business.

---

Thank you for that explanation, Vicky.

All this talk about denying union representation rights to people who scab is silly, IMO, and repeats the logical fallacy that allows scabbing in the first place.

Unions provide a public good that applies collectively to all members. As a result, the exercise of union "rights" like the right to strike is fundamentally a collective one. My personal belief is that scabbing should be illegal, as it is in Quebec, because a union member who scabs isn't really exercising an individual "right." Rather, they are acting to undermine the democratically determined bargaining position of their coworkers.

That being said, once a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, I think the union ought to be obliged (and is, by law) to fairly represent everyone in the bargaining unit. Once again, this is a collective good. Unless the contract is clearly, properly, fairly, equally enforced for everyone, how can any individual member feel confident it will be enforced appropriately for them?

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

So the employee continues to pay an equivalent amount of dues, the money just never reaches the union.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

That would be great if we all agreed on which anger is "justified" and which isn't.

Meanwhile, being angry at social assistance recipients who you believe are squandering your hard-earned tax dollars is justified, and being angry at a fellow union member who's forced by economic conditions to continue working while on strike is unjustified.

Work with that.

---

I agree. People will always disagree.

Some people deny the holocaust ever happened. Some people support g.w. bush's invasion of Iraq.

Some people blame the Jews for everything.

We might as well just throw our hands up in the air and forget about trying to make distinctions judging the relative merits of anybody's position because they're just our opinions after all.

Blanket condemnations against people on welfare, no matter how many studies show that most people on the system are not ripping off the system, are just as valid as blanket condemnations of scabs.

The fact that every act of scabbing injures the working class in general by conceding to bosses' power, and defeating worker solidarity (no matter what the individual scab's justifications), has no weight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:

This also means that the union is no longer entitled to collect union dues for that person. A union cannot refuse to provide representation but continue to collect dues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
Unions have a legal duty of fair representation to their members. If someone has a grievance and the union refuses to deal with it, that person has a right to complain to the labour relations boad.

All members of the bargaining unit (that is, all those who receive the benefits of a negotiated settlement) must pay dues to the union.

But they don't have to join the union (well, it depends on the union's constitution); you can be a member of the bargaining unit but opt out of union membership - which means you can vote in a strike vote (as is your legal right) but not, say, for members of the union executive or other regular union business.

---

Thank you for that explanation, Vicky.

All this talk about denying union representation rights to people who scab is silly, IMO, and repeats the logical fallacy that allows scabbing in the first place.

[/qb][/QUOTE

I think it may have come out of a comment I made earlier but what I intended to convey is not that the local would withhold representation in grievances and so on, but that the local would surreptitiously and also maybe not entirely subtly "remind" the line crossers of their transgression, if they sought out representation. In such a circumstance I can imagine the union representative not being entirely motivated to give a good fight for the member's rights... i.e. to not go the extra mile.

Our local considered in 1991 to increase union dues substantially for all members, and to give all members-in-good-standing a rebate, effectively fining the line crossers. Happily this didn't happen.

.
edited to correct formatting of quote block

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: CYL688 ]

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: CYL688 ]

quote:

---

Posted by Wellington:
But I never saw anyone go in to work as a matter of principle, because they thought "it's the right thing to do".

---

Well, then meet your first such person because I did exactly that. In my case, the strike was illegal, it was stupid and it hurt a lot of innocent people who depended on our service. I wasn't hurting for money and it would have been far easier for me just to stay away completely but I had to make a statement. The funny thing, though, was that the statement was lost. I know there was plenty said behind my back and the union plotted to get back at us but nobody ever had the guts or decency to confront me so I never got the chance to explain my actions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CYL688:

They can direct their dues to be paid to a registered charity as well, apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebel:

Well, then meet your first such person because I did exactly that.

---

And meet the second person who has done this as a matter of 'principle' (although I'd prefer 'conscience' or 'sympathy')

Many years ago I worked as a "community worker" (a designation the government came up with to save on the expensive salaries of "social workers") in an inner city district of Montreal. Among the many files I was given to work on (total overload as it was an impossible workload) was the one where I worked with an estimated 10,000 poor senior citizens living in rooming houses and often being unable to go out.

I was still on probation on my job; so I didn't have any union membership. (In the end I left the job before the probation ended because it just seemed so hopeless, like bailing the water out of a life boat with a teaspoon.)

Never mind that the reason for the strike itself seemed to be a petty, bureaucratic issue. (Some technicality about cleaning the building, if memory serves.)

My boss was a progressive (yes, they exist too) and I told him that in the event of a strike I wasn't going to cross the picket line and come to the office but that I was going to visit some of the seniors, which I did.

I do believe in union solidarity (albeit I broke it) and I do realise that strike breakers also benefit from the higher salaries etc the union secures.

I could not in all good conscience take this out on the seniors for whose benefit I was supposed to work.

I also did not wave my paycheck from the other side of the window at the picketers. As a matter of fact my boss was the only one I told about it (we had been friends for a long time before I got this job) and he promised never to tell anybody else.

The strike lasted only two days and by me being a scab the seniors actually benefitted a little bit. I was supposed to work one day a week for them and because of the strike they had two days that week.

It didn't make a big difference but maybe the ones who got a visit, which they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, felt a little better.

It was not an easy decision given my political inclinations; as a matter of fact it was heartrending for me. But I don't not regret my actions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebel:

Well, then meet your first such person because I did exactly that. In my case, the strike was illegal, it was stupid and it hurt a lot of innocent people who depended on our service.

---

I don't think I have ever claimed that my experience established a universal rule. But it is my experience, like it or not. Also, the two strikes I've been involved in were both legal strikes, which I think makes the circumstances very different.

quote:

---

So maybe the reason you never saw anyone cross because of principle is simply because you assumed the worst of these people.

---

We'll never know, will we? It's equally possible that I never saw it because it wasn't there to see; or because I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer; or because I was off buying a donut, or ... the list could be endless.

[ 30 October 2004: Message edited by: Wellington ]

quote:

---

Darren A:
Oh how I long for the likes of good old Ronald Reagan...

---

Ding Dong the witch is dead!
And so is rotten Ronnie.

quote:

---

Greedy unions beware!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darren A:
Oh how I long for the likes of good old Ronald Reagan, who finnaly took real measures to break the back of the air traffic controllers Union back in 81 by firing the the whole bunch of them.
Greedy unions beware! your day of reckoning will arrive sometime soon as well.

---

I wonder if our union-hating friend is equally nostalgic for the days of Polish leader Wojciech Jaruzelski. After all, he also took decisive measures to crush uppity unionists in Gdansk, in the very same year that those filthy air-traffic controllers got their just desserts.

quote:

---

Many years ago I worked as a "community worker" (a designation the government came up with to save on the expensive salaries of "social workers") in an inner city district of Montreal. Among the many files I was given to work on (total overload as it was an impossible workload) was the one where I worked with an estimated 10,000 poor senior citizens living in rooming houses and often being unable to go out.

I was still on probation on my job; so I didn't have any union membership. (In the end I left the job before the probation ended because it just seemed so hopeless, like bailing the water out of a life boat with a teaspoon.)

Never mind that the reason for the strike itself seemed to be a petty, bureaucratic issue. (Some technicality about cleaning the building, if memory serves.)

My boss was a progressive (yes, they exist too) and I told him that in the event of a strike I wasn't going to cross the picket line and come to the office but that I was going to visit some of the seniors, which I did.

I do believe in union solidarity (albeit I broke it) and I do realise that strike breakers also benefit from the higher salaries etc the union secures.

I could not in all good conscience take this out on the seniors for whose benefit I was supposed to work.

I also did not wave my paycheck from the other side of the window at the picketers. As a matter of fact my boss was the only one I told about it (we had been friends for a long time before I got this job) and he promised never to tell anybody else.

The strike lasted only two days and by me being a scab the seniors actually benefitted a little bit. I was supposed to work one day a week for them and because of the strike they had two days that week.

It didn't make a big difference but maybe the ones who got a visit, which they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, felt a little better.

It was not an easy decision given my political inclinations; as a matter of fact it was heartrending for me. But I don't not regret my actions.

No need to tell me about the slippery slope. I know; that's one reason my decicion was so difficult to arrive at.

---

See, here's the thing. 1.) You're hired as a cheap alternative to the people who used to do the job. [not your fault, but employers take advantage of us...]
2.) You say the workload was impossible. Something unions are always accused of being dishonest and self-serving about is when they warn about declining standards if their members jobs are degraded.
3.) "Something petty about cleaning the building," ... might I say that in hospitals or senior citizens' residences, building sanitation and maintenance is never a petty issue.

if the answer is yes then are all of the players who are locked out here but going to europe to play scabs? i know that they are not playing for the owners that locked them out but they are playing.

#2 Even in a strike situation, the workers don't strike because they've just decided they don't like working any more. Almost all strikers want to work. They just want to make a change to their working conditions. They strike in order to deny their labour to an employer which they feel is treating them unfairly, for the purpose of compelling that employer to change its behavior.

In any case, the dispute here is strictly with the NHL owners. It's not with the Europeans and its certainly not with the fans on either continent. The players should feel free to play anywhere else they want as long as they maintain their solidarity against the NHL.