Should scabbing and scabherding be outlawed?
I don't know what scabherding is but scabbing shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to work in place of the strikers and the company is willing to hire them then why not? If you go on strike you take your chances.
Marc
Doesn’t that make it practically impossible to strike? Once strikes were illegal and people worked in terrible conditions like those which exist in some third world countries. Hiring scabs (scabherding) has practically the same effect. In most democracies, this practice is illegal.
The term “scab” is one of the worst insults one can throw (depending on your background), and it is bandied around rather too casually in my opinion.
Some people seem to willing to use the term to refer to anyone who would cross a picket line. Some to any hiring of non-union labour. I view this as very much over the top.
A scab in my book is someone who takes a job in a situation where the sole purpose of the job is to defraud current employees of contractual or other legal rights.
Where scabs are used as a means to sack workers solely because of their union affiliation, then yes it should be illegal. However, where a firm employs non-union labour to escape a de facto closed shop, I would allow it.
picmr
It makes it more difficult I suppose. If the company has some sort of agreement with the union or unions that prohibites hiring scabs then I think that's ok. But I don't think it is ok to pass a law making it illegal to hire someone else who wants to work. Unions made up of skilled workers probably wouldn't have a huge problem if they went on strike. Unskilled laborers would be the ones affected the most.
Marc
I’ve got a bit of a background working with (and against at times) organized labor, and also know a fair bit of the law on this issue.
“Scab” is a general term for anyone who crosses a picket line. It is considered to be the supreme insult. The most hated of “scabs” is the current employee who refuses to honor the picket line and continues to work. These people are considered to be utter traitors. Brand-new “replacement” employees are also called scabs, but are viewed as only slightly less reprehensible than regular employees because they don’t have a history with the employees out on the picket lines. Subcontractors, suppliers, etc. who cross picket lines can also be referred to as scabs, but since they are under their own orders from their own employers, they engender much less hate from strikers as do the other categories of scabs.
Anytime a union goes on strike, the employer can hire replacements. However, the basis of the strike determines whether those replacements may become regular employees, or whether the strikers must be reinstated when the strike ends. This is an important distinction in modern labor relations.
Under the Supreme Court’s McKay Radio decision in 1939, employees who go out on strike in an effort to increase their economic leverage-- that is, strike for higher pay or shorter hours, etc.-- may be permanently replaced by the employer. The replacements may not be offered anything more than the employer’s last contract proposal to the union, but if replacements are hired, the strikers are out of jobs and must go on a waiting list until openings occur at the company. The rationale is to allow the free market to work-- if the employer’s offer to the union is fair in the market’s eyes, it will be easy to locate replacements willing to work for that wage; if the employer really is paying sub-market wages, it will not be able to find replacements to take those wages.
However, if the employees are striking in protest over an unfair labor practice allegedly committed by the employer-- i.e. the unjust termination of a pro-union employee-- the employer may not permanently replace the employees, since doing so would abridge their rights to engage in concerted union activity without retaliation. The employer may hire temporary replacements, but must release them and reinstate the strikers when the strike is over.
The system actually works pretty well. A strike is a costly endeavor to an employer, both financially and in terms of public image. While it is possible to hire permanent replacements, there is not usually a ready pool of available, trainable, and reliable potential employees to bring in except for the most unskilled of jobs. A few high-profile strikes have resulted in employers squeezing out lots of union employees with permanent replacements, the Caterpillar Equipment strike of the early 90’s being the most visible, but on the whole, employers would much rather make some minor wage concessions than suffer a strike.
It’s not much of a debate so far, but the OP was opaque, not incoherent.
Your contribution Nurlman, is pretty much what I tried - less succesfully - to say above.
However, I would reiterate: some people abuse the term scab. If you come from a background where solidarity matters, scab is a term of abuse not that far off “quisling”. Using it for people who merely disagree with you is low. Using it for people who behave in ways that are inconvenient to your cause is nasty: “rat” is more appropriate.
picmr
I was in a union once and only joined because I was told whether or not I joined I would have to pay the monthly union dues. But I felt no loyalty to the union and would not have hesitated to cross a picket line if a strike had occurred. There may be trades where a union brings real perks and being a union member means something, but so many labor groups offer nothing for their members. Hell the one I was in couldn’t even spell members names in the monthly newsletter correctly.
Unions in the United States have become a faded reflection of what they once were early in the last century. They have become big business and the reason they remain intact or attempts are made to form new ones often has more to do with union leaders/organizers wanting a paycheck than employees needing bargaining protection.
Believe it or not, picmr, the term “rat” has a specific meaning in the labor movement as well. At least in the construction trades in western NY and PA, the term “rat” is usually used to refer to a developer that uses non-union building labor.
I’ve seen plenty of union slingers outside non-union construction sites encouraging suppliers not to “feed the rats.” It’s especially effective when the project involves building onto or refurbishing an existing business that involves food or has a cafeteria. They love to haul out the “Don’t eat here. Rats have been spotted in the kitchen.” placards.
It would be nice to think that, like computer programmers or the Illuminati, organized labor has a complete dialect all its own. But “scab” and “rat,” along with maybe a handful of other terms, is about it. For general all-purpose expressions of disapproval, the union guys I know will generally resort to “asshole” or, if feeling particularly colorful, “fucknut.”
As far as I’m concerned, Unions are evil cartels which exist solely to artificially inflate the value of their members. The workers who fill the positions vacated by bloated union workers are not “scabs” or “rats”, they are hard-working men and women who just want a job. The fact that “scabs” exist is proof that union workers are over paid.
The biggest problem with unions is the ‘us vs. them’ mentality that they create. It’s disgusting to walk through a union shop and see signs on the wall that say “Are you being unfairly treated? Call your union rep.”
Nope, I’m still not seeing what’s disgusting about this.
What’s disgusting is that people are a) encouraged to find fault, and b) discouraged from working it out.
Sorry, I don’t see it that way. Where’s the encouragement to find fault? My interpretation of that is that it’s good practice to help keep strong morale and workplace relations. I do understand your second point more, though, but surely any good employer should have some mechanism for arbitration when internal procedures are found wanting (or at fault themselves).
a) they should instead be encouraged to accet unfair treatment?
b) using union representatives to mediate disputes with management is working it out.
Like almost any other adult in America I can tell horror stories of lazy/overpaid/abusive union employees. I can also tell stories of unfair/dishonest/abusive employers.
The history of unions in this country contains more than overpaid shop stewards and unsavory ties to organized crime. It also contains plentiful examples of employers valuing profit over the rights, contracts and even lives of their workers. It is a mistake to remember only one side of the story.
I think my favorite quote on scabs is from that great american author, Jack London. He wrote a little paragraph on it .
[bold]
The Scab
“After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab.”
“A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.”
“When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out.”
“No man (or woman) has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with. Judas was a gentleman compared with a scab. For betraying his master, he had character enough to hang himself.” A scab has not.
“Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Judas sold his Savior for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commision in the british army.” The scab sells his birthright, country, his wife, his children and his fellowmen for an unfulfilled promise from his employer.
Esau was a traitor to himself; Judas was a traitor to his God; Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country; a scab is a traitor to his God, his country, his family and his class."
Author — Jack London (1876-1916)
[/bold]
Spiritus Mundi wrote
I agree. There are examples of rotten people and practices in all walks of life. I know many fine people who are union members.
But that doesn’t change what unions are at the core: cartels, unregulated monopolies. They have the same strengths (ownership of the entire market), desires (maximizing their own gains and squeezing out their competition, non-union workers), and leverage (shutting down the market by embargo or strike). The end result (and goal) of both is to artificially create a higher value for themselves then the free market would dictate. I don’t believe in unregulated corporate monopolies, and I don’t believe in unions. I don’t see the difference between the two. They are both selfish, unfair bullies.
mattk wrote
Imagine a third party comes into your house and posts a sign for your SO that says “Not getting the love you deserve? Call Julio (or Julia, depending)”. How would that make you feel? Don’t you think your spouse should talk to you if there is a problem? Don’t you feel like that sign is encouraging an ‘us vs. them’ mentality? Do you think that sign would alleviate or create problems in your relationship?
I’m an employer, and I care about the welfare of the people who work for me. I try hard to look after their interests (money, pleasant work environment, growth, etc.), and expect them to look out for my interests (growth of the business) in return. Management needs to watch out for issues that arise and avoid them or fix them, but in the event issues are not discovered by management, an employee should resolve them with management themselves, either by talking with their manager, an HR rep, etc.
Ah yes. Things were much better without unions. Back when the average workday was 12 hours and people didn’t make enough to feed their families. It’s much better to have everyone paid a minimum wage. Those god-damn unions, making it so working families can afford houses and cars. Things are much better in countries where unions are controlled by the government. Like cuba. Right billehunt?
oldscratch wrote
My friend, I said none of those things. But to be clear, I am against
- workdays of 12 hours where people can’t feed their families
- paying everyone minimum wage
And I am in favor of - people being able to afford houses and cars.
I don’t follow your point about Cuba, but I hope you understand my standing.
For what it’s worth, the average person I employ makes over $70k/year and stands a good chance of making a mess of money if the business goes somewhere. From past companies, there are several people who have worked for me who are now millionaires as a direct result. People are everything in a business. It’s key that people see themselves as part of the business and participate in the success. It’s key that there is unity and common goals. Unions create a division where management is the bad guy and the goal is to raise wages, lower work and find blame.
Labor unions were once a necessity when sweatshops, child labor, 12 hour days and 7 day workweeks were the norm. Such is no longer the case due to state and federal labor laws.
Unions today are nothing more than political special interest groups rife with corruption and extorted money.