Public vs. Private

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Lomax on February 8th, 2017, 9:58 pm 

Paul Anthony » February 9th, 2017, 2:50 am wrote:
Lomax » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:44 pm wrote:

Easy fix. Sympathy strikes have been illegal in the UK since 1927, but cross-employer unions have not. As for how they're more powerful, they can prevent or forbid their members from crossing companies to act as scab labour.


I'm confused. Could that actually be a problem? If someone is gainfully employed, why would he want to leave his steady job to accept temporary work as a scab? I find it doubtful that such a thing has happened, so why is it necessary to prevent it?

I dunno, but wasn't it what BiV was saying necessitated industry-wide unions? I have the feeling I must have misunderstood him.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Forest_Dump on February 8th, 2017, 10:03 pm 

I have never heard of a sympathy strike. I have heard of people taking unused vacation time to work another job if the money was good enough. But I might suspect that one company loaning staff to another as scabs in order to try to bust a union is about as common as sympathy strikes.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8773
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Lomax on February 8th, 2017, 10:23 pm 

Forest_Dump » February 9th, 2017, 3:03 am wrote:I have never heard of a sympathy strike.

I'm surprised to hear that from a Canadian; I'd have thought it as much a part of your country's culture as mine. In 1926 in the UK, 1,200,000 coal miners were threatened with lower wages and longer hours so a total of 1,700,000 workers from various industries (transport, mining, building, etc) went on strike. The government responded by publishing its own propaganda newspaper, attempting to infiltrate the BBC, employing an army of extra policemen (220,000, I think) and helping mine owners draft scab labour. The government had seen this whole situation coming and secretly stockpiled coal for the previous nine months. Meanwhile the USSR tried to donate funds to the British unions, which didn't exactly make them look good (given that in 1924 the Daily Mail (surprise, surprise), had published a forged letter, supposedly by Zinoviev, to the British unions, planning a USSR takeover of Britain). The strike was broken,workers accepted defeat, and in 1927 sympathy strikes were banned altogether. They remain that way. I'm also surprised to find the US of all places still allows them.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Forest_Dump on February 8th, 2017, 10:47 pm 

Pardon me. I do remember hearing of several "general strikes" including one in Winnepeg. Of what little I know, I thought these were primarily in places that could be called "factory towns" where one or a very small number of businesses pretty much monopolize the town (and often also own a good chunk of the other businesses including banks, stores, other property, etc. I can't say I have heard of many post WW2 however.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8773
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Athena on February 14th, 2017, 9:53 pm 

I had to look up sympathy strikes

Sympathy Strike Law and Legal Definition. A sympathy strike is when one union strikes in support for another involved in a dispute, even though the first union has no disagreement with the employer. It is a labor strike that started by workers in one industry and supported by workers in a separate but related industry.
Sympathy Strike Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sympathy-strike/


In the book of the 1917 National Education Association Conference, and teacher who spoke at the conference took pride in what public education had to do with unions. This teacher saw union activity as one way we stand up for our rights. In a 1920 newspaper I read an explanation of the $5 dress being the evil of sweat shops. Also, a reason for discriminating against the Chinese immigrants was they worked for less and that lowered wages for all. A 1916 book titled "Poverty and Riches", makes a strong case for better working conditions and wages for the labor. A quote from the book.

Duties of Leadership

The great leader is the great server.

The leader derives his commission to leadership from the special qualities that enable him to be of service to his fellows. The commonweal demands that the great burdens and the pressing issues of life be met. The leader asserts his right to leadship because he, better than any other, can direct the activities of his fellows along the path that leads to a successful solution of the problems by which hey are confronted. The great leader is the great server. "If anyone would be great among you, let him be your minister." The greater the service, the greater the leadership.



Would you believe we had education for thinking like that? I can prove we did, and when that education was replaced with the education we have had since 1958, the social, economic and political ramifications of that change have been intense and not all good.
Athena
Banned User
 
Posts: 1936
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Previous

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests