>Your first job is to DO NO HARM, which is to say, you can't just actively
>sabotage what the workers are doing. To do so is to side with the boss
>against the workers. That's what you're doing. It IS that simple.
No dude it isn't. Maybe in the binary world of a zealot this is true but reality is sometimes messier than this. The harm in having the union picket Bills store is enormous in a town this size. You don't know what you're talking about. IF the store begins to hire non-family members that situation will change but until then it is counterproductive to picket that store. It is a stupid plan that is bound to fail. Only dogmatically blinded people advocate and support it. Bills store does not exert downward pressure on wages or undermine solidarity with workers because it is staffed by family. The union is trying to bully or perhaps shame someone into paying union dues. This is about trying to extort money out of someone in a weak position. In this instance if the union were interested in helping workers they would not actively impede Bills ability to build his store and they would work with him to assure that if the store grew to contain non-family member hourly-wage employees that Bill would work with them to facilitate moving the store into a union shop. Since before the union stabbed Bill in the back he was very pro-union this strategy would have likely worked. It would not have given them the immediate cash inflow that they apparently desire even more fervently. Most businesses are not owned and operated by pro-union individuals and the union pissed all over their chance to think beyond their pocketbook and about future employees and their working environment. In an ideal world I wish Bill had his family join the union and I wish he paid his taxes with a smile on his face too but he didn't. The picket does nothing except make the union look like they are trying to bully an old man and extort union dues from him and his family. It doesn't matter whether you perceive the situation that way or not this is the viewpoint of most in this community and it is essentially correct.
> > Trying to reach people who can't see beyond
> > simplistic dogma
>
>It's not "simplistic dogma." It's the distillation of over a century of
>union experience and has real-world consequences; I didn't invent union
>principles, but I do defend them.
Well don't expect everyone to blindly follow a union banner over the edge of a cliff. You are advocating simplistic dogma in this case even if you refuse to admit it. Bill is my friend and I owe him my allegiance. IF, and this is a big IF the store begins hiring non-family members, and if it remains a non-union shop then it will be undermining workers. I will then be forced to choose between standing in solidarity with workers or supporting a friend thanks in large part to the incredibly stupid and shortsighted decisions of a handful of people. Until that day comes however this problem does not exist and that makes this picket wrong. I am not obligated to help the union look foolish just because they have chosen to do so. I am also not obligated to help them extort money from a friend under the guise of workers solidarity when it is obvious to anyone with eyes that this store has no real effect on job availability or wages. It is sad that your dogmatic adherence to "union principles" allows you to overlook the other principles also at issue here. Every religion needs its zealots I guess. Maybe you could suggest a new slogan for all unions to adopt: "Infallibility, it ain't just for the Pope anymore".
>Last year my partner argued against a strike by her union, saying it was
>ill-advised. When the strike vote came and people approved the strike, she
>worked harder than anybody else in the union to actually organizing the
>strike. This was as it should be. If she had decided to undermine the strike
>because she thought it ill-advised, she would be a scab.
>- - - - - - - - - -
>John Lacny
>http://www.johnlacny.com
Ill advised isn't necessarily the same thing as a picket that actually undermines attaining the end results the union claims to advocate. If she worked to facilitate a negative perception of the union in an action that offered zero positive gains then she would be guilty of weakening the union even if it was sanctioned by the union. I assume this is not the case in this instance and I doubt it is an issue that comes up often. In fact this is the only picket line I can ever recall having crossed. It is also the only picket line this obviously about extortion that offers no benefits to workers that I have been aware of either. Calling Chuck a scab is as bad as calling him a cop in my opinion. I am surprised Doug hasn't pointed this out. I don't care if Doug agrees with me or not on this issue but I thought this type of accusation was not supposed to be allowed on this list. Your condescending "I'm irritated dealing with "scabs" so please forgive me for being a total asshole" attitude is amazingly counterproductive too. Such overt authoritarian displays are usually frowned upon by all but the most reactionary so you may want to take some valium before you type if you can't control yourself any more than this.
>It's really very simple: 4 legs good; 2 legs bad.
>Get that straight, OK?
>Joanna
Certainly if things were this black and white life would be simple. It is not and although I'm not surprised at Lacny's binary outlook I am a bit surprised at yours. I have spent a good many hours concerning the most appropriate manner for me to deal with this particular issue in this particular setting. Fortunately for them no such deliberations are necessary for people who dogmatically know the right thing to do beforehand. To disagree is fine but to claim to hold the absolute truth in the proper manner of response to all situations is simplistic.
John Thornton
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0503-0, 01/18/2005 Tested on: 1/19/2005 10:36:09 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com