I suppose this is a hijack–but do you see grey areas in this? I know I do: while the main decisions are made in the Capitol, each person in the Pentagon makes the decision every day to come to work and carry those decisions out. I believe that, for good or ill, everyone has responsibility for the foreseeable results of his or her choices. Protestors who protest at the Pentagon may be ineffective (I tend to think most protestors are, at least in the US), but I disagree that they’re targeting people who make no relevant decisions.
It’s hard to explain to a crying child,
Why her Daddy won’t go back.
Well the family suffers but it hurts me more,
To hear a scab say ‘Sod you, Jack.’
Is it considered crossing a picket line even if you don’t work there? Like, to go shop in a store? What if whatever they’re protesting doesn’t apply to you?
It depends. I’ll try an avoid crossing a retail picket line, or one at a hotel, for example, because I would rather give my business to a different company.
My building, on the other hand, was picketed by construction workers. I spoke with the union official, and he said that employees going in to work were not considered “crossing” the picket line there.
Doesn’t matter. Crossing a picket line applies to customers as well as workers. If you support the union, the cause or the workers, don’t cross. If it doesn’t matter to you, and your job is so secure and life-long, and that the struggles unions have gone through for decades have had no impact on your life in any way, then cross it. Your choice.
His reputation was somewhat undeserved, however you look at what happened. Coolidge was slow to take action against the strikers (there was a brief period of rioting and mass lawbreaking in Boston while the strike was on) and only took a hard line after the situation became big national news.
Which side are you on, boys
Which side are you on
I’ve crossed picked lines, but in several cases I’ve stopped to find out why people are picketing. None of the pickets I’ve encountered have blocked or threatened me, but I know that it happens.
Does this mean you automatically assume that the picketers are in the right? Or do you educate yourself on the particular case instead of letting some people with some signs do your thinking for you? If I walked off my job because I didn’t get that raise I wanted, would you stop giving your business to my company? Would it matter whether I belonged to a union or not?
But in the case being discussed, picketers are blocking access not to businesses, but to public places like City Hall, municipal services, garbage dropoff points, and things that people must use. On the first day of the strike they tried to stop an elderly woman from using the washroom.
It’s NOT people’s choice. That’s the problem. This isn’t a problem of people being asked to make some sort of ethical decision (I’m not sure I buy that either, but that isn’t by point.) This is a case where people are being physically bullied and intimidated.
Perhaps it’s different elsewhere, but here strikes by public workers invariably include picket lines that are very aggressive and intimidating.
It’s not automatic, though it is close. It’s a presumption - maybe not 100% rational, but there you go.
It isn’t letting people with signs do my thinking. It’s a belief in organized labor. Just as some people will espouse “My country right or wrong” which I think to be a very unhealthy attitude, I presume based on history and experience that in conflict between labor and management, my sympathy will tend to lie with labor. I’ll admit the belief is far less viscerally felt sine I moved to the US, mainly because I don’t know US labor history anywhere nearly as well.
Heh, what exactly are people supposed to do with their garbage? The city established drop-off places for the strike, and the picketing workers are physically harrassing and delaying residents who attempt to drop off their garbage - and the cops on hand ticket anyone who gets disgusted at having to wait in line for hours with their garbage, and just dump it on the spot.
And the strike? It is about banking sick days (that is, a perk whereby one has a certain amount of sick days per year, and if you don’t use 'em, you can cash them in for money on retirement) - a perk almost no-one has these days; and this during a major recession.
The public good-will towards the union in the face of this isn’t exactly high.
Thank goodness I’m in Etobicoke - the city here contracted out its garbage service, so no strike.
I do :). We can accumulate up to 1040 hours, at retirement this figure is doubled and added to “time served”, potentially extending service credits by up to a year ( i.e. someone with 1040 hours of accumulated sick leave that retires after 25 years on the job, will get a pension equivalent to having worked 26 years ). I am quite fond of this system and begrudge it to no one ;).
But no argument that harassing or obstructing civilians is never acceptable.
Wonk, wonk, wonk.
Let the union explain it.
[siderant] The whole ‘scab’ thing pisses me off. These are people who need work, you elected as a whole to walk away from your job and in order to keep the place alive, SOMEONE has to do the work, frankly, if it weren’t for these so-called ‘scabs’ places would fold and there would be no job for the strikers to come back to. [/siderant]
Is that rather not the point? No ones job is secure or life-long and to suggest that the union can make it so is the worst kind of folly. GM is proof.
There is no question that it is a sweet perk - it is also, however, an increasingly rare perk.
To call a vicious strike over this perk in the middle of the worst recession in years is hardly going to arouse widespread sympathy. Lots of people here don’t have jobs at all, let alone jobs where they pay you extra not to call in sick.
Particuarly when combined with tactics basically guaranteed to harass the largest possible number of totally innocent fellow citizens - treating people merely wishing to get rid of their garbage into some sort of nasty scabs.
To my mind, the union is making a huge political mistake. The current mayor of Toronto is considered to be the most labour-friendly mayor in years. All of his possible rivals are considerably less friendly towards the unions. Pretty well no matter what the mayor does, this strike is gonna hurt him, and future mayors are very likely to be voted in with a mandate to stomp the union as hard as legally possible. Way things are going, something like 90% of Torontonians would be on board with that plan - the union simply does not have a sympathetic case and they have not pursued it in a way designed to attract any sympathy.
Well, I don’t know the situation in Toronto, but to me it sort of boils down to the situation pre-strike. Did they already have this perk and the city is trying to take it away? In that case, based on that factoid alone, I could see maybe going on strike. Say some guy that has been a good boy for 20 years and conscientiously saved up his sick leave, with the knowledge that he has been promised by contract a “good employee” incentive at the end of his labors, only to have it snatched away - well, I can get the upset. Enough, potentially, depending on other factors, to walk.
On the other hand, if they are striking to add this benefit? In this economic climate? And that’s all they’re striking for? Yeah, not much sympathy. If nothing else, I agree it’s shitty strategy.
A combination of the two. The city wants further accumulation of sick days to be eliminated, but banked days will be grandfathered.
It is taking away a benefit that already existed (and replacing it with a short term disability program) - as the quid pro quo for not taking away jobs. As I understand it, those who have already “banked” days will get them, but new days will not be “banked” in the future.
Essentially, the city position is that it cannot afford during a recession what it could afford in good times; it is deep in financial trouble. They need to get concessions or to lay people off. Naturally, the union will allow neither.
The background is that the mayor of this city is about as union-friendly a guy as one could find. The unions are taking a very hard line - no concessions. Only problem is, the city is out of money, and raising taxes isn’t going to be popular - it will simply drive the city into a downward spiral.
The union position is that the mayor is using the recession as an excuse to take away rights they already had.
Here’s the union position:
Lots of rhetoric about workers “who reach their older years with bodies broken from hard physical labour”, but they fail to mention that the “sick days” will be grandfathered for existing employees under the city proposal.
Hmmm…much grayer ( or greyer, I forget which way you wacky Canadians swing 
). Assuming that was the only seriously disputed issue, I’d personally be inclined to take the deal. It sucks to lose benefits, especially for younger employees who gain little advantage from grandfather clauses. And I generally advocate “we-all-get-it-or-nobody-gets-it” clauses to prevent infighting. But under the circumstances, with grandfathering and if there is some sort of quid pro quo ( like say a no-layoff clause for the life of that contract ), I’d take it.
Though if I were the union I’d at least like to insert some language about about the City promising to revisit the issue in a future contract. Such statements don’t mean much, but its good propaganda for a union looking to win public support in the future - “Hey we accepted cuts when things are tight, but now three years later with the economy booming, the City is stonewalling us on an issue they promised to re-open to serious negotiation! Is that fair?” :p.
Times are too hard to get excessively stubborn. I fully expect to have to take it in the rear on health care on my next contract ( I already got hit a little on the last one ) in about a year.The costs are skyrocketing and I feel some sympathy for my employer over the bind they’re in. I blame the fucked up American health care system much more than them.The idea is to minimize the pain and perhaps come up with compensatory perks when possible, not completely avoid it. At least not when the economy is in the shitter.
Wow, Jack’s pretty thin skinned and self centered.