Just because they helped get those things in the past, why does that mean I need to be supportive of the current incarnation of them? The Magna Carta was developed by Barons and signed by King John. Do I need to support the aristocracy? Should I also support the religious teachings espoused by the early settlers of the US? Point being, just because I derive benefit from groups in the past doesn’t mean I need to support their current form.
So the if you’re going to argue that the actions of past unions of the past, which were notoriously racist, shouldn’t be held against present day unions, then why give present day unions credit for past actions.
Since it was a picket line, not just one person it’s difficult to believe that the union leadership didn’t at least tacitly approve.
Beyond that, no, I don’t see any reason how any reasonable person could think screaming insults and making threats at someone for trying to feed his family is anything but shameful.
Do you also defend the behavior of the people who were making a point of ostentatiously taking pictures of the driver as we drove away from the station or would you agree that such threatening behavior should be considered beyond the pale.
I disagree that the actions of unions in the past were most notable for being racist. There were most notable for accomplishing decent labor laws. That you choose to focus first, primarily and only on the racism of the past speaks loudest about your personal point of view towards unions today. They didn’t think women should vote in the 1800s? Their views on suffrage don’t reflect poorly on their movement. It’s largely irrelevant, except if you want to simply find past practices of a part indicative of the whole. Which they aren’t.
Scabs should have insults screamed at them, regardless of their motives. Paid assassins the same thing. Being a scab is far, far more shameful than insulting a scab for being a scab. It’s almost as shameful as the Jews that helped the SS at the death camps in exchange for slightly better treatment, and certainly comparable. (And yes, I went all Godwin, but it is an apt analogy.)
I also approve of taking pictures of asshole scabs and their drivers driving away from the scene. And coming to the scab’s place of business and trying to get the scab fired for it. Payback is a bitch. The union jobs are not scab jobs and are not scab business. You come into their house and try to screw with their livelihood, I don’t see why they shouldn’t do the same to you.
There really is nothing lower than a scab short of a criminal. Shame, ridicule, insults and loss of status in the community are just responses to scabbing. Unionizing is legal and morally upright. Violations of morality and legality can, should be and are punished in the appropriate forum (legal and social) with far more regularity than corporate behavior that is illegal or immoral. Millions of fraudulent robo-signers of mortgages in the mortgage meltdown. If there are even three in jail I’d be surprised. And it isn’t as if the names aren’t known. Union members acts of criminality are prosecuted and should be. Management acts of criminality are rarely prosecuted, just look at the vast management fraud at the banks during the mortgage meltdown. Are more than a handful even charged?
Modern Western Civilization is a balance between the desire of corporate interests to get as much labor as cheaply as possible and the interests of the citizens in being workers and still having lives to enjoy with their families. I find the need for corporations, but also the need to reign them in. Unions have in the past provided some resistance to complete corporate power.
I personally think any one should be able to form a picket line and put their case across. I also think anyone who threatens someone freely crossing that line is scum and pretty much forfeits any good will they may have had coming to them.
The word “scab” is just a handy way of dehumanising those willing to work when others aren’t. They are perfectly entitled to cross the line and work but by labelling them thus it becomes easier to vilify them.
Never had need of unions but I defend everyone’s right to organise. I support freedom of labour but what I don’t defend is any organisation telling a individual when or where they can work.
Well, there we go QED. You heard it here people. The above is apparently an example of morally upright behaviour.
You do realise that reason for unions losing their legitimacy in the eyes of many is encapsulated in the poisonous screed above.
Let me test your dedication to acceptable moral standards. Someone crossing a picket line is beaten up…what is your reaction?
You don’t support unions, we got that. But your analogy makes the point opposite of what you think it does. The Magna Carta didn’t give you as a commoner any rights at all. Only barons get rights under the Magna Carta. A better analogy would be the US bill of rights that guarantees rights that you enjoy today in its current form. Yes, you should support the constitution and bill of rights. There is in fact a political struggle going on every day to erode the rights that unions built up through political action. It goes on every day in legislatures across the globe. The political organization of unions is the chief proponent of workers rights as exampled by the list of 36. I support every one of those rights and benefits and the efforts of unions to keep them strong. Modern conservatives have introduced measures in various US legislatures to weaken or eliminate every single one of those benefits.
It is no coincidence that it is conservatives who hate unions and want to weaken those laws and benefits to working families.
On another side, several unions lost my good will when their picketers screamed at me for going to my non-union job that happened to be in the same building that they were picketing at.
I have no problem with unions. I just am not interested in being in one myself.
The rest didn’t save. I just don’t find the argument that because they did some good in the past so we should support them now to be compelling.
That is just about the stupidest comment I’ve read on this site in the last week which is saying quite a lot.
Anyway, if I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is that during the 19th Century Chinese immigrants and African-American migrants from the South who came northward and took jobs that had been abandoned by European immigrants were comparable to the Nazis?:dubious:
So then, when European immigrants engaged in violence against said Chinese and African-Americans(or “Chinks” and “niggers”) to use the terms they did then, is your position that they were being like the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto who fought back against the Nazis?
Ah, so you do support thuggish behavior against people just doing their jobs. In this case it was some blacks who’d been contracted to come north to fill in for some working-class whites who rather foolishly had decided to abandon their jobs. Being the late 80s and being from North Carolina it’s hardly surprising that any of the African-Americans would feel all that sympathetic to a bunch of working class whites and would probably piss themselves laughing at your rather naive suggestion that they were somehow betraying their own, particularly since the guys confronting them saw nothing wrong with calling them “nigger”.
What other sorts of behavior do you support? Throwing rocks, bottles, and or food at them? Since you seem to support threats, do you also support taking the threats a bit further and physically attacking the people involved?
Agreed, it’s along the same lines as modern right-wingers who say that since the Republicans used to the the Party of Civil Rights when the Democrats were the Part of segregationists that modern day African-Americans should support them now.
Except of course the OP seems to go even further and suggest that by not supporting them, they’re somehow being “ungrateful”.
What 36 benefits are we talking about here? You’ve posted a list of 36 benefits, but others in the thread had already explained why many of them didn’t come from unions. Are you going to respond to that fact, or just ignore it?
As a Wobbly, I’m proud to say that the IWW has never engaged in any sort of racism, sexism, or xenophobia. That’s because we’re a working-class union, rather than a bourgeois trade union.
It was pretty cool when that union picketed my company and handed out propaganda about our products because we had the gall to hire a non-union food service contractor.
I call bull. I can’t think of a situation where a union could stop someone from getting a raise, unless they were a union member, in which case you should thank the union for also keeping you from getting your pay cut too. You take the bad with the good.
That’s not the argument. The argument is that if you don’t support what unions are doing now, you might lose what you’ve gained from them, even if you aren’t a member and don’t see those benefits. It sucks to understand what unions do for you by losing it and having to fight to get it back again.
What are they doing now? I worked around a bunch of union members and didn’t really hear about anything. I’ve seen mention in this thread that republicans want to take benefits away, could I please see some cites of that recent activity?
The last time a union was trying to convince us to join them, they couldn’t or wouldn’t give me any specifics of what they could do for me beyond “we have a contract” and “You might not get overtime pay”. I read that contract and didn’t see anything of benefit to me that I didn’t have anyway and in some ways I had it better. Except the privilege of paying dues to them.
Since it is entirely made up, I’m not going to respond. Unions were the instigators behind every single one of those 36 improvements to our lives. Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant or making things up entirely or both. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Accusing people of lying doesn’t help win them over.
Also, declaring “I’m taking my ball and going home” doesn’t convince people that they’re wrong.
Beyond that, people have already punched holes in your claim about unions being responsible for the “36 improvements”.
To give one obvious example, how exactly were unions responsible for “public education”?
There’ve been public schools in the US for children since at least the early 19th Century and starting in 1852(Massachusetts) states started making schooling compulsory. The Knights of Labor weren’t formed until after the Civil War and fairly small until the 1880s.
What unions were responsible for the State of Massachusetts in 1852 making public schooling compulsory?
Beyond that, since I responded to your questions, would you mind responding to mine in response to your defense of union members engaging in harassment and threatening behavior.
Also, perhaps you would have the courtesy to respond to Novelty Bobble’s rather legitimate question if you find me unworthy of a response.
Thank you in advance for your response.