I support their right to strike and may even support the reason for the strike. I also support the right of of a non-union worker to be employed to do the jobs that the striking workers are not.
Yes, that means that in some cases I’ll support the rights of people to do things that I have a moral problem with.
And to make it not a moral issue, you had to remove the union. It’s just person A vs person B, rather than person A working to help a ton of other people vs. person B who is only out for themselves.
Person A, if they get their way, helps a lot of other people. Person B doesn’t. That definitely has a moral component to it. Helping others is the cornerstone of morality.
Certain contractual obligations shouldn’t be allowed no matter whether they are freely negotiated or not. They do not pass the “reasonable” sniff test. Trying to exert control over how a non-union worker operates merely because of their union status and nothing to do with their behaviour is, in my opinion, wrong.
You disagree.
But it has everything to do with their behavior, as evidenced by the fact that non-union workers weaken unions and make it much harder for unions to negotiate for better working conditions.
A Nazi-slogan-shouting coworker negatively impacts my worklife, by making me hear Nazi slogans. A non-union coworker negatively impacts my worklife, by making it harder for me to negotiate for better conditions.
It’s factually incorrect to say that it has nothing to do with their behavior.
Edit: as a corollary, if my union membership requires something not behavior-related, such as “Must be Anglo Saxon,” then I agree that requiring union membership for all workers should not be available as a contract negotiation. But I’m unaware of any union memberships that require something not related to behavior for membership.
I strongly disagree that freely choosing not be a member of a union is in some way a “behaviour” that can and should lead to the restrictions that you suggest.
You may not like the fact that some or many of your colleagues choose not to join a union. Feel free to strike over it.
uh, yeah? Strike to change our contract so that only union members are hired? What else would such a strike consist of?
And where I live such a demand would be illegal, and rightly so.
So “feel free to strike over it” means what? “Feel free to strike for an illegal demand”?
I am curious how a strike is supposed to do anything, when the employer faces absolutely no repercussions for firing everyone and hiring new workers who are willing to be underpaid or mistreated.
If you feel strongly enough that such a provision should not be illegal then…yes.
I’d support your right to do so and yet would not support your goals.
“no repercussions”? Hiring and training are time-consuming and expensive. If the work is particularly skilled then the loss of all that expertise on strike is a major blow and not to be taken lightly.
If, of course, the work is easily done or low-skilled, or in a low impact and discretionary area then it may be that the strikers will hold less power.
ETA - also, I said nothing about “firing” anyone. That should not be allowed in a legally held strike.
That second right is one of your own creation, though. It doesn’t inherently exist. One does not inherently have the right to take someone else’s job.
Yes, in the US, we have “right to work” which basically means that they can fire you for whatever reason. But a union-run strike is the exception. Your job is guaranteed to continue to be yours.
That is what gives unions power over people who just get together and strike on their own. They cannot be replaced.
You are not advocating for the rights of people you disagree with. You’re creating a right for people who you claim to disagree with, but are actively helping with their goals.
That is not support. And my position on that will not change. You can’t argue that you are pro-union and also be pro-scab. Those are completely opposite positions.
Crossing a picket line is something that people who support unions cannot support. Even if they don’t support the union’s cause, crossing the picket line is not okay, because it justifies crossing your own picket line if one occurs.
no rights “inherently exist”
I agree, but people should have the right to be hired (and for employers to hire) to cover for people who are currently not carrying out their jobs.
I feel like I’m in a Eugene Ionesco play.
If something is illegal and you think it shouldn’t be then you are perfectly free to take whatever protest action you think necessary to change it. I don’t think that is such a strange concept.
And that is what I am against, because it undermines the power of the unions. The one tool against exploitation that workers have. Scabbing harms workers, and thus I cannot support it.
I mean, in reality, people can scab. It happens. But I do not support it as some sort of right, as some sort of thing I have to accept, even if I don’t like it.
There’s a reason why scabbing is considered such a horrible thing, even if you’re not part of the union in question. Heck, it’s not uncommon to disagree with the union’s cause but still see a scab as the lowest of the low.
I support people’s rights to be a non-union worker. But not their right to take over a union job during an active strike. I make only an exception for those who are in dire need, who have no other choice.
Then we will have to simply disagree. The employer should be free to employ non-union workers to plug the gap.
And I can’t see any reason to support that other than to try and undermine the very concept of a union. How does your position make the world better?
It’s absurdist drama because labor strikes are almost never about changing laws; and the main area of exception, strikes by public sector workers, aren’t relevant in this thread. Striking to change the law about points of contract the law allows for purposes of striking to change contracts is straight out of the Bald Sopranist.
And union workers should be free to agree en masse not to work for that employer.