http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/theScab.html
Are the workers members of the union? If not, then it is intuitive that they are a threat to existing workers in the industry. They may not have done anything overt to threaten the other workers. But if they aren't members of the union, they are clearly indicating that they intend to scab on other workers in the industry, by competing with them. Or helping their employer compete with the employer of the other workers, which amounts to the same thing.
In a dog eat dog world, this is a declaration of war. The jobs of the unionised workers are directly threatened, the very life of the unionised workers are under threat. The union is entitled to do whatever is within its power to crush the scabs.
Why don't they just to join the union? Perhaps you might suggest it?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 2:57 AM -0500 19/1/05, Michael Pollak wrote:
>I have an ethical/tactical/union question in everyday life that I
>was hoping someone could help me clear up.
>
>A new store has opened up in my neighborhood, a small gourmet
>supermarket called the Garden of Eden. Afaict, they've been in
>business 14 years, and this is their 5th store, all in New York
>City. So they are neither a Mom and Pop operation nor a megacorp.
>
>3 days after they opened, the United Food and Commercial Workers
>turned up outside picketing. But -- and this is the part where I'm
>confused -- the workers in this store are not on strike. There
>hasn't even been any serious effort to organize them. (There
>couldn't have been in 3 days, especially the initial 3 days, and
>interviews with workers confirm this. They say they were hastily
>handed cards w/o any explanation.)
>
>So something about this doesn't seem right. It seems to clearly
>violate the principle of never boycotting workers unless they ask
>for it. The workers involved aren't in any way scabs, because like I
>said, no effort was made to unionize them and there is no strike.
>And this boycott, by hurting them directly the day after they got
>their jobs, seems to be infuriating them and making them never want
>to join the union on principle. (The gist of the union literature
>is that people should shun this store and shop at D'Agastino's
>(another gourmet supermarket) up the street instead. D'Agastino's
>management included coupons for $5 off the first few days.)
>
>At least at first sight, this rubs me the wrong way. It seems to be
>asking me to hurt workers who haven't done anything wrong. It just
>doesn't seem right.
>
>Is there something crucial that I'm missing? Is this a common
>tactic? Has it worked in the past in the sense that the boycotted
>store ends up getting a union? Is this how D'Agastino's and Fairway
>and Gristede's got unions?
>
>Anything thoughts or URLs that would help me sort this out would be
>appreciated.
>
>Michael
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk