The NBA is currently in negotiation with their referees on a new CBA. The NBA has said they will use rplacement (scabP) referees if no agreement is reached.
I am not asking about who has the high ground here, what I want to know is this: Should unions, including the Players union, the concessionaires union, and any other union that would be asked to work during an NBA game using scab referees refuse to do so on principle and as a matter of solidarity?
Or are the NBA referees “different”?
What exactly are you basing it on if not a moral sense? Practical advantage? Cost efficiency? Union Bowling Leagues? Sans some standard, your post makes no sense.
Basing what on? Unions generally support other unions in labor actions. Would they do so in this case? Should they?
No. The only time I would disagree with the use of scab workers is if the employer is actually doing something wrong, like failing to provide a safe working environment or committing a crime. If it’s just because their collective bargaining agreement expired, opposition is an immoral attempt to monopolise the supply of labour, using methods which would be considered a felony for anyone else.
Absolutely the players union should not “cross the picket line” of the refs, unless they have negotiated that right away.
In response to the “it would be a crime if anyone other than labor did it”, let’s keep in mind that it is not a crime, Ronnie Raygun supported strikes against the Polish communist government when it suited him. Nobody but banks (and other small exceptions) can lend at usurious rates, but banks sure as hell can under the law. That is because they are banks. Labor unions can and should stick together because they are the only check on the power of business owners to oppress individual workers. While there are those who object to the advances labor has made, they don’t object so hard as to offer to work for less than minimum wage, 16 hours a day, six days a week without benefits or sick leave etc.
The other unions should cooperate with the referees’ union if and to the extent that such cooperation will further their members’ interests, which ultimately is up to them to determine. I don’t see anything that makes the question any more complicated than that.
That’s odd, I could have sworn that the minimum wage was something mandated by federal law rather then a group of people unwilling to do their job for what their employers are willing to pay them.
When pro-football went on strike and the teams fielded scabs, did the other unions honor the player strike?
And that federal law largely came about in response to union pressure.
Given the quality of the reffing I’ve seen over the last couple of years, no, the players should not only not support the refs, they should push for the scabs to be permanent replacements.
Reagan wanted Polish workers to strike because he considered the Polish government to be doing something wrong (because they declared martial law and outlawed the sole non-communist trade union in the country). If you actually read my post, you would notice that I explicitly stated that I would support opposition to the employer in this sort of situation.
You’ve got it ass-backwards, as usual. Regulations on banks are not there to provide monopolistic control of finance, they are to ensure that deposit-taking organisations like banks don’t crash and burn, taking their creditors with them.