I wasn’t the one you are directing your comments too but I am thoroughly confused as well. It is great if you have a one-brain marriage but that has no relevance to the outside world nor does the size of the union in question. Either they have have a legitimate point or they don’t. It doesn’t matter if it is Teamsters, a startup-up union at a local shop, the CIA or the PTA. This is the SDMB. The only thing that matters is the strength of the position.
What does the size of the union have to do with anything? I would respect a small starup union more than say the AFL-CIO just because they would be local and probably don’t have a checkered past. The former is a mega-corp and criminal organization on its own while the latter may just be in the true spriit of what unions are truly supposed to achieve.
I wouldn’t cross the picket line. Just out of respect for what the workers are doing. It’s not easy standing outside all day in the rain or cold with that picket sign.
Apparently, confusion is the least of your problems. Try reading my posts again, if it isn’t too much trouble, and tell me where I said anything that would lead to the above unbalanced rant? In the meantime, for any of your sleep-deprived brethren who are still having difficulties with comprehension, I don’t care if the union has 2 members or 2 million, if it’s 2 days old or 2000 years old, as long as it is an actual union and not just a group of homies with a complaint.
I’m not sure what your beef is with my response to Novelty Bob’s question about using the pronoun “we,” but I think we can assume that it has nothing to do with picket lines at grocery stores. My husband, who was sitting beside me while I wrote the post, agrees.
You didn’t say that you had your husband confirming your keystrokes, hence the reason I found your wording curious. I agree on some points married couples will agree but neither I nor my own partner would automatically expect the other to conform in the case of crossing a picket a line. I can easily imagine disputes that she would find valid and I would not. Each to their own.
And you’ve clarified that it is the fact that a union is “official” that gives the dispute legitimacy. I find that strange. I’d be just as likely to boycott a shop or service on the strength of a single person’s unorganised complaint as I would for a massive super-union. Surely the only thing that matters is the justification for the action?
3 years without a new contract here, probably going out again pretty soon. So I’d never cross (even during the best of times) and hope you won’t cross mine. In general, I believe unions are very good for the working man (and woman) and the economy. Stronger unions would do a lot toward propping up the erosion of the middle class we keep hearing so much about.
And I still haven’t said that. Please don’t attribute your preconceptions about relationships to me. I don’t need my husband to bestow his blessing upon statements like those I’ve made in this thread. We also don’t have any expectation that the other spouse will automatically share a certain viewpoint. Instead, I have a clear and comprehensive understanding of his thoughts on this subject because we’ve discussed it several times in the past. Having that level of agreement on a narrow topic after more than 20 years of marriage doesn’t strike me as unusual. If it does seem noteworthy to others, I guess you’re right, “To each his own” is the only way to look at it.
There actually a traditional element to this question of unions honoring each other’s picket lines, which is the specific aspect of the issue I was addressing. Because of my husband’s union involvement, from which I also benefit, we would not even consider crossing another union’s picket line, and we theoretically could expect the same from them were our positions reversed.
Once again, I have made no mention of only supporting “massive” unions, and I have never proposed that we would be crashing through nonunion protestors willy-nilly. We might very well listen to the claims from those groups or individuals and decide to shop elsewhere, or even make a split decision if we’re in the mood, with one of us crossing and the other choosing to stay outside. (Yes, we do have differing ideas occasionally.) Only in the case of a union picket line do we have an obligation or duty to honor the strike. Other lines of people marching with signs we would consider to be protests rather than pickets.
I confess I’ve never been in a union and can’t put myself in the “they’re right, no matter what” mindset.
I never felt the need as I’ve always negotiated my own contracts and the only interactions I’ve had with unions has been first hand intimidation and obstruction so that probably hasn’t made me warm to them automatically. They’d have to have a very good cause before I inconvenience myself or before I’d accept them inconveniencing me.
I guess the problem I have is that they are automatically assumed to be good for the working man. Are they? I can’t think of a situation in my working life (best part of 30 years) where I would have benefited and I can’t stand the thought of a third party being involved in deciding how, when, where and for how much I work. The whole concept of a “closed shop” whether official or de-facto just seems inherently wrong.
I have no preconceptions about relationships, I only know my own. You said he was there with you and agreed with what you posted, I’m in no way suggesting that that is common practice for you.
And that’s a tradition that I don’t have and have never experienced. I know it happens but it doesn’t sit comfortably with me, it seems to me to be too politically dogmatic. I couldn’t stop myself from questioning the validity of their claims and their motivations.
How can anyone *not *take the individual circumstances into account. Have you *ever *known anyone to strike over an issue that wasn’t valid?
That’s your distinction to make of course and you are free consider it an obligation or a duty if you wish. I approach it from the other direction and consider a picket as just another protest with no special legitimacy other than the strength of the complaint. As such I’ll judge each one separately with a perfectly clear conscience.
I have not seen a union strike over invalid issues. That’s one of the benefits, IMO, of a union versus a loose or informal collective of people: The union is able to provide guidance to its members regarding the usefulness of a certain action and the chance a strike will be successful. If a strike is not likely to be settled to the benefit of its members, the union will generally inform them of this and suggest alternatives, then provide the members an opportunity to vote for or against a strike.
There is nothing to gain on any side from encouraging union members to strike over trivial matters, and I can’t recall ever seeing that happen here. I’m sure it has happened somewhere in the world at some time; we are dealing with human nature, after all.
As you have every right to do. I don’t believe I’ve argued that you should do anything other than exactly as you please. You seem to have a problem with my reasons for deciding when to cross or not cross a picket line, not the other way around.
No way would I cross the picket line. I would possibly ask what they were picketing about, but they’d usually have signs telling you that before you asked. In fact, living extremely near a supermarket, I’d ask if they needed to use the toilet or have a cup of tea.
I can manage for a day or two without fresh milk or juice. Inconvenient, yes, but less so than workers not getting their due.
I always think of strikers as striking for all of us -whenever they strike, it makes bosses of all kinds check their T&C, and continues the idea that employees do have rights.
No, but I didn’t make any claims as to what their salaries are. I think all supermarket workers should form unions, so I can’t provide you a cite for your second question either.
Nope, I don’t a problem ( in that I think you should behave differently) just that I don’t understand your point of view as my experiences are different. I’ve seen union intimidation against innocent workers and action taken on spurious grounds. If you’ve never seen such things then you are obviously going to take a different view of this.
London Underground helped me refine my stance pro strikes. Even if you don’t agree with what they’re striking about - and the news often totally misinterprets what they’re striking about - it’s helpful to the rest of us that there is still a union prescence.
We might be late to work because of TFL strikes, but that makes our employers remember that we actually do have unions, and rights, and so on.