 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Ever hear of, as you call them, scabs? Ever hear of unemployment? Because I guarantee you, when there is unemployment, workers who go on strike CAN be replaced. |
Not at all. In fact, many very successful strikes in US history have been during times of massive unemployment. The wild cat strikes (something else that the state has prohibited) of the mid-late 30's were remarkably successful, for instance. Strikes work, and they work very, very well.
My point is that employers are in no sense forced into accepting union shop contracts (again, they're even legally prohibited in half of the states in the country). They face some coercion, but workers face much more.
Last edited by Ramo on 15-10-2004 at 12:05
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: Strikes work, and they work very, very well. |
And I don't oppose the right of workers to strike. What I oppose are laws protected their jobs while they refuse to work. I'm sure you're right, in that strikes have caused employers to give in, but that isn't the point. I have no problem with that - my problem lies with the government intervening in favor of EITHER side, whether it's the workers or the employers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
So you agree that the State shouldn't intervene on other side? If so, then what are we arguing about?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
IF laws forbid employers for firing employees because they strike, or try to form unions, or anything of the sort, then yes, they are indirectly forced.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: My point was that the coercion on workers is greater than the coercion on firms, so the idea that employers are being forced on this matter is nonsense. |
And my points are that a)there is a difference between coercion in the form of laws and coercion in the form of employer-employee relations, and b)I'm not in favor of any government coercion when it comes to voluntary agreements between two parties.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
Fortunately, Texas is a right to work state, but in any case, you probably know more about union regulations/union law than I do, so I'm not gonna argue with you on the fine points of it except to say that, again, I have no problem with unions, strikes, etc., so long as the state does not protect them from (non-violent) retaliation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: Again, laws greatly constrain the rights of workers as I pointed out earlier. |
And I oppose those laws as well, provided we are talking about "rights" from the same perspective. I don't believe that I have a right to employment, for example.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
As long as the union shop exists, WITHOUT the union being protected by the government, then I have no problem with it.
But without any government protection, I just don't think we'd see that many union shops. As effective as strikes may be, or may have been in the past, I just don't see them being ALL THAT effective today in the United States.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: and lived off his parents for a good portion of it |
That's actually not true, but I'm not gonna argue about it with someone who's pretty much just trying to be a dick.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|