Bill writes:
> Are the workers members of the union? If not,
then it is intuitive that they are a threat to existing
workers in the industry.
Huh? How is that intuitive? If they are not members of a union, all that can be inferred is that they are not members of a union. Questions to be asked:
1) Has the issue of being in a union been raised with them? 2) Have they tried to form a union and been stymied? 3) Has the union made efforts to organize them and been
explicitly rebuffed.
> They may not have done anything overt to threaten the
other workers.
Since when is accepting a job a threatening action? Terrance just accepted a job behind a donut counter. Is he threatening 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.
But if they haven't been offered the option of being in a union and turned it down, the only way you know this is if you are a mind reader.
> The union is entitled to do whatever is within its power to
crush the scabs.
But the union first must determine if they are scabs. Just because the union labels them as scabs doesn't mean they are. Hets do the same thing with queer men: they label us all as child molesters, and then use this "fact" as reason to try and crush us.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister