Would you ever cross a picket line?

[Dragonlady]

Isn't that a boycott?

[Zeener Diode]

I think N3 is talking about a protest, or boycott. A protest can be a picket line. If that's the case, I'd consider whether to not to cross. Most of the time, I'd probably avoid it.

There are also "informational protests" which is not a strike line but can be supported by a union. Unions use them to spread word about disputes employees have with management, rather than calling for a strike.

[hajario]

What if the picket line is manned by professional picketers who were never union members?

Honestly, having a policy of never crossing a picket line no matter what or making a point of always crossing one equally fucking moronic.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Huh. I always thought of picketing as being employees and boycott as being customers.

Originally Posted by hajario

Honestly, having a policy of never crossing a picket line no matter what or making a point of always crossing one equally fucking moronic.

Why thank you!

[Zeener Diode]

I can take the high road and say that no union I belonged to ever did that, at least not where I worked. The linked article indicates it was not a strike line, since their workers were still on the job. Professional picketers, like professional signature gatherers, ought to be banned.

I'll reiterate my earlier position to declare that I'd never cross a strike line.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I'll reiterate my earlier position to declare that I'd never cross a strike line.

Yeah, I kinda conflated the two, didn't I? Strikers were the ones that I wouldn't cross because they are the ones that I see picketing. I wasn't familiar with information picket lines.

[SmartAleq]

That's a good distinction--I won't pass a strike line but if someone's picketing or boycotting a business for a reason I find stupidy or morally questionable I'm through that line like an NFL linebacker through a bunch of elementary schoolers playing Red Rover.

[silenus]

Nope. Proud union member myself. I'm pro-union in just about every manner you can think of.

And fuck Clothy.

[SmartAleq]

Not even with yours, my friend!

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

That's a good distinction--I won't pass a strike line but if someone's picketing or boycotting a business for a reason I find stupidy or morally questionable I'm through that line like an NFL linebacker through a bunch of elementary schoolers playing Red Rover.

And if a union happens to be striking for something stupid or morally objectionable? What if a union struck over objection to a more progressive hiring policy with respect to minorities? Labor is getting more conservative in Trump time. Could it happen?

[SmartAleq]

It could, but like supporting the partner who's been abused in a relationship being on one side can be a bit of a wrench. I mean, what if the battered partner is a super annoying person who basically makes EVERYONE want to beat them senseless? Including me? I have to accept that the overarching moral imperative of "nobody gets to beat people they're intimately involved with" has to take priority over "even if any sensible person would understand being driven to it by the utter annoyingness of the battered partner."

The labor market should, ideally, have three legs--the regulations of government that provides the basic framework, the needs of the employer to make money and keep the business healthy and the needs of the workers to have a livelihood and working conditions that are not exploitative or damaging. Both the governmental regulation leg and the worker solidarity legs have been damaged by the overweening attention to the priorities and needs of corporate culture so it's really important that we support efforts to bring those legs back into their proper emphasis, even if it might mean that at some times and places there are less than ideal accomodations that have to be made. It's easier to modify worker culture in a properly represented, union supported workplace than it is to get it represented in the first place so better to have a leg that's a bit too short than one that simply isn't there.

As with many situations, harm reduction is a valid objective and considerably better than throwing up your hands and allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good enough.

[JackieLikesVariety]

you tell em, Smartie!

[hajario]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

you tell em, Smartie!

Um, what? I'm not anti-union by any stretch. I just think blind loyalty is insane. To support a specific strike even if they are overtly racist in my (exceedingly unlikely) scenario just because unions are generally good makes no sense to me.

It's like I am almost certainly not going to vote for any Republican in the 2020 election. But there could be a case where I would if the other people were even more egregious.

Why is studying the issue and deciding on its merits considered so outside the bounds of reasonable?

[Mr. Plumbean]

I resist any demand I shut off my brain and be blindly faithful to something.

[SmartAleq]

I'm going out on a limb to surmise that Jackie's recent experiences in the field of unregulated, non-unionized healthcare have made her a tad jaundiced regarding the benevolence and goodwill of employers. She's in a field that would benefit about a thousand percent from unionizing, even if they happened to get the most thuggish of cartoon level unions to represent them. It would be a step up no matter what, and I'm thinking the people in those jobs would be fine with getting a living wage and some benefits and would prefer to worry later about problematical clauses in future, as yet unwritten, contracts.

And really, anyone who's concerned about what their union is doing who doesn't attend every meeting, go for leadership positions in the union and work actively with their fellow employees is, quite frankly, leaving a lot of money on the table. I've seen what even a lowly shop steward can do--my son was one at a Teamster shop when he was barely twenty and he helped a lot of people and learned a lot from the experience.

[hajario]

And once again, I am not anti-union. I wouldn’t mindlessly cross every picket line because one union or even most unions were bad. From what you have described, I would support Jackie’s pickets. How does any of that address my point that blind obedience isn’t good and that individual strikes should be decided on their merits?

[SmartAleq]

Because if I'm not in a position to walk that picket line of striking employees then I'm not in a position to judge the rightness of their reasons for striking. What I owe them, and they owe me, is support in their efforts, and amplifying their voices by showing that actions have consequences and it's to the advantage of the company to not let it get to strike level. That means a lot to me, it's a loyalty I take seriously. Others don't, that's why there's more than one flavor in the ice cream aisle.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Because if I'm not in a position to walk that picket line of striking employees then I'm not in a position to judge the rightness of their reasons for striking. What I owe them, and they owe me, is support in their efforts, and amplifying their voices by showing that actions have consequences and it's to the advantage of the company to not let it get to strike level. That means a lot to me, it's a loyalty I take seriously. Others don't, that's why there's more than one flavor in the ice cream aisle.

Even if their demands are flat out wrong and management is taking the morally correct stand in a particular instance. Ok.

[SmartAleq]

Again, I'm saying that if I don't work there then there's no way I know the story. And if I don't know the story then yes, I'm going to default out to supporting another worker. No matter what, I owe the other workers more than I do any company. You don't agree. Fine, nobody's arguing with you here, you just keep right on doing you.

[stormie]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Unions had a chance to work during the industrial era. But the industrial era is ending, and with it the theory of labor behind both capitalist and socialist theory. Neither capital nor labor are prime in bringing value: rather, these days, it is the engineers, scientists, and artists.

I'm having trouble with your premises.

[Sparkers]

The industrial era runs on fossil fuels. Without oil and coal, farming becomes all human and animal labor. That will take most of the population. Manufacturing becomes a few skilled craftsmen making tools, clothes, etc.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I get what Sparkers is saying. Our economy has changed and we're lucky to have any of those industrial jobs at all, so labor unions don't have as much leverage. "We're on strike!" "Oh, convenient, because we're exporting your jobs to Mexico!"

[JackieLikesVariety]

Originally Posted by hajario

And once again, I am not anti-union. I wouldn’t mindlessly cross every picket line because one union or even most unions were bad. From what you have described, I would support Jackie’s pickets. How does any of that address my point that blind obedience isn’t good and that individual strikes should be decided on their merits?

Hajario, I wasn't aiming my post at you at all - I was just agreeing with Smartie's post.

The labor market should, ideally, have three legs--the regulations of government that provides the basic framework, the needs of the employer to make money and keep the business healthy and the needs of the workers to have a livelihood and working conditions that are not exploitative or damaging. Both the governmental regulation leg and the worker solidarity legs have been damaged by the overweening attention to the priorities and needs of corporate culture so it's really important that we support efforts to bring those legs back into their proper emphasis, even if it might mean that at some times and places there are less than ideal accomodations that have to be made. It's easier to modify worker culture in a properly represented, union supported workplace than it is to get it represented in the first place so better to have a leg that's a bit too short than one that simply isn't there.

it isn't "blind obedience" to recognize that workers in general and our society as a whole are both better off with strong labor unions - something we have strayed very far from, sadly.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s with both my parents in unions and we were better off as a family and also as a country back then.

in my last two jobs my co-workers don't even get that we should have paid breaks (instead of unpaid and having to do documentation while we snarf down food) or that working 55 hours to finish your "40 hour a week" job is wrong. it's bad for therapists, it's bad for the patients, and ultimately it causes higher turnover and hurts the companies long term.

but they don't even understand long term, let alone care about it.

Even if their demands are flat out wrong and management is taking the morally correct stand in a particular instance. Ok.

this has zero relevance to anything I have ever personally experienced in my 57 years on earth.

I get there has been corruption in unions just like everything else touched by the hands of human beings.

so you FIX the union, you don't demonize it. same with "Big Government" - you don't throw up your hands and say it's bad, you FIX it.

and there is the false equivalency that if Clothy is wrong on one side, then Smartie must be wrong on the other and you can claim to be reasonable since you are in the middle and just not wanting to have "blind obedience" - something Smartie did not say, she said

And if I don't know the story then yes, I'm going to default out to supporting another worker.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by hajario

Even if their demands are flat out wrong and management is taking the morally correct stand in a particular instance. Ok.

When presented with Haj's scenario it becomes apparent that there is something very wrong with both parties. I hope I'm never part of either one of those, union or management, because that's a recipe for disaster (and unemployment). No, blindly following someone or something isn't what you should do. But in my experience, strikes erupt only after considerable talks between both parties have stalled, and neither wants to cede to the other's demands. Any union that calls to strike for frivolous reasons isn't worth my dues and shouldn't be allowed to operate. As a principle, I assume that any strike is dead serious, and putting their workers' jobs at risk in order to protect or change them, and so I will not cross.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

it isn't "blind obedience" to recognize that workers in general and our society as a whole are both better off with strong labor unions - something we have strayed very far from, sadly.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s with both my parents in unions and we were better off as a family and also as a country back then.

in my last two jobs my co-workers don't even get that we should have paid breaks (instead of unpaid and having to do documentation while we snarf down food) or that working 55 hours to finish your "40 hour a week" job is wrong. it's bad for therapists, it's bad for the patients, and ultimately it causes higher turnover and hurts the companies long term.

but they don't even understand long term, let alone care about it.

Unfortunately for most unions, they have suffered from inertia and their own hubris. What worked in the sixties and seventies won't work today, especially in the manufacturing sector. Public employee unions are the most dominant ones today, and the SEIU is the fastest growing union by virtue of organizing and representing the service industry (which the larger unions have ignored). But the stigma and misconceptions about what unions do has hindered their ability to attract members, and so we have Right To Work laws that cripple unions, and their efforts to protect workers from company abuses. And then there's the gig economy: SEIU has been seeking ways to organize Uber and Lyft drivers, but pushback from both companies has been brutal, threatening to cut contracts of any who try to organize.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

Hajario, I wasn't aiming my post at you at all - I was just agreeing with Smartie's post.

Fair enough

it isn't "blind obedience" to recognize that workers in general and our society as a whole are both better off with strong labor unions - something we have strayed very far from, sadly.

No it isn't and I never said it was. Moreover, I agree with this.

Come to think of it, my Mom was in the California Teachers Union. She has a nice pension now.

and there is the false equivalency that if Clothy is wrong on one side, then Smartie must be wrong on the other and you can claim to be reasonable since you are in the middle and just not wanting to have "blind obedience" - something Smartie did not say, she said

BULLSHIT. Yes she did say that but it was after the post of mine that you are referring. My default would also be to side with labor too until I educated myself.

I was responding to this quote from Smartie to which you gave the thumbs up.

It could, but like supporting the partner who's been abused in a relationship being on one side can be a bit of a wrench. I mean, what if the battered partner is a super annoying person who basically makes EVERYONE want to beat them senseless? Including me? I have to accept that the overarching moral imperative of "nobody gets to beat people they're intimately involved with" has to take priority over "even if any sensible person would understand being driven to it by the utter annoyingness of the battered partner."

[JackieLikesVariety]

What worked in the sixties and seventies won't work today, especially in the manufacturing sector.

I'm afraid that is true.


Hajario, I am getting ready to have a moving sale (Saturday) and relocate to another state with very little including no job so I'm tiny bit stressed.

so, I think maybe I should stay out of this thread just like I would if it were about reproductive rights or...well, lots of things.

meanwhile I liked and shared a post from Patriot Millionaires on facebook and now I'm going to go back to work on this pile of stuff. that's the thing about facebook, it makes you feel like you are doing something useful, but of course you really are just distracting yourself.

BULLSHIT. Yes she did say that but it was after the post of mine that you are referring. My default would also be to side with labor too until I educated myself.

OK!

[Mr. Plumbean]

Unlike this place, where you can't even pretend you're doing anything useful!

Good luck on the move, Jackie.

[Glazer]

I'm being useful. I'm wasting time at work.

[Inner Stickler]

I don't cross strike lines.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Yeah, but you're like 14. Has it ever come up?

[stormie]

[threadhijack] The agrarian age lasted over 10,000 years. It represented a significant change; the strong limitation of migration, the development of larger cultural units, more hierarchical societies, and changing gender roles, and more. These are huge changes in human cultural development which occurred over thousands of years.

The industrial age can be said to have begun in the 1700s, which in cultural developmental time is yesterday. Culturally, we are reeling. We are dealing with are how to handle existing agrarian societies and the agricultural component of industrial societies, what social roles are, what social roles are, (because we are baffled on this one), and what our culture is. How will labor be handled? Who gets to end up where on the social scale? How are we going to divide resources? What are the responsibilities of individual regions to the new and confusing global economy, migration, health, environment?

That we are creating stuff that runs on electric machines does not change that we are in an industrial age. What the electricity comes from is irrelevant. Every bit of code happens on a machine, can be traded or limited, requires human skills of many types, supports social hierarchy, depends on metals, plastics, energy sources and suchlike. The nature of unions themselves support the idea that the type of industry has changed, rather than industrial age being a historical hiccup.

[Shmiogenes]

Originally Posted by C2H5OH

Yes. Fuck the unions. Their argument with management ain't my argument. I don't give a shit.

Sounds like you do give a shit or else why the anger? What do you have against people who work for a living?

[Jaglavak]

I'll just leave this here.

Port automation dates to the 1960s, when dockworker unions agreed to the introduction of containers, and consequent job losses, in exchange for higher pay and benefits. Today a typical full-time Southern California longshore worker earns more than $100,000 a year. But thousands of so-called “casuals,” who are not yet registered union members, earn far less, are eligible only for part-time hours, and do not yet get health or retirement benefits.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union had, in fact, agreed in 2008 and 2015 to allow West Coast ports to automate in exchange for pension increases and job security for current dockworkers. Having won the benefits, the union is now leading a campaign...to stop or at least slow automation in the name of community protection.

[stormie]

Driverless cars scare me, when they are not annoying me. Does no one watch dystopian future movies??? The driverless cars are Always trouble.

Actually I am afraid they will run into things, and I know they hold up traffic. Bah humbug.

Given how much companies want to remove employees, where is the Automat? Why the hell don't we want to hire more people for call centers, medical front desks, nursing staff, salespersons, checkout persons . . . There are soooo many times when more people on the job would solve the problem. We have the people. These businesses are doing well. This is not sustainable in an industrial society that anyone wants to live in.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

I'll just leave this here.

Automation is coming. But you can't blame the workers for trying to hold onto their jobs.

[SmartAleq]

Eventually, if automation continues apace, we're going to have to decouple work from income or we won't have an economy any more. What use is it if all the fancy robots turn out products that nobody has resources to buy? Or if 3D printing keeps improving to the point where anyone can manage to acquire what is, basically, a replicator? Sooner or later we're going to have to retool the economy to reflect what's actually going on out there. That whole biblical "if any will not work, neither will he eat" thing doesn't work when nobody actually needs to work to get shit done.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

Automation is coming. But you can't blame the workers for trying to hold onto their jobs.

No, but I can blame them for posing as friends of the worker when in reality they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else. I spent plenty of time on construction sites working next to guys making four and five times more than me. But try to get into the union yourself and find out it would take a gold rush to float your name to the top of the list. They were just another road block to me. So these days I care about them exactly as much as they care about me.

As far as the economy there is another challenge coming up with the tapering off of global birthrates. How do you run a steady state economy with a money supply that's built on eternal expansion? I wish I knew how that one is going to work out.

[stormie]

I think . . . I don't think that counts. Unless there is only one employee, and even then a single picketer is kind of like a picket fence with only one picket . . . . but I do see the title doesn't specifically say union. I certainly cross social issue picket lines, but I think of those as 'crowds with signs'. strange.

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

No, but I can blame them for posing as friends of the worker when in reality they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else. I spent plenty of time on construction sites working next to guys making four and five times more than me. But try to get into the union yourself and find out it would take a gold rush to float your name to the top of the list. They were just another road block to me. So these days I care about them exactly as much as they care about me.

That sounds similar to my first experience with a union: I was 17 and landed an after-school job of clearing debris at a renovation site. For two days no one there spoke to me. The third day a guy approached me and asked if I belonged to the union. I said no, and he told me I couldn't work here. I reported this to the guy who hired me and was told not to talk to anyone there, just do my job. This confused me, so I quit. Yeah, those construction and dock guys can be assholes. I was fortunate to find other jobs with unions that were more welcoming.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by hajario

And if a union happens to be striking for something stupid or morally objectionable? What if a union struck over objection to a more progressive hiring policy with respect to minorities? Labor is getting more conservative in Trump time. Could it happen?

That happens a lot in your neck of woods, does it? People carrying picket signs saying they won't work with minorities, while management is taking the moral high ground?

A bunch of people say they would research the issues. Somehow, I doubt that people would Google the issues if they were already of the mind that they would consider crossing the picket line. You want to know what they are striking for? I'll tell you: A livable wage. Better benefits. A safer work environment.

I know that teachers in our area have unions and it pisses some people off. Ask those people who had a positive effect on their lives. If it isn't a family member, chances are very good they will name a teacher. To repeat, unions and tenure prevents every new administration from firing everyone and packing the faculty lounge with family members.

To update my original post: Stop & Shop management and the union are back at the bargaining table after six days. After the first day, people in my area seemed to be respecting the picket lines and many stores are doing very little business. Given the perishable nature of many grocery items, S&S could get a little good press by donating items to food pantries. We'll see.

[Mr. Plumbean]

People only have a different opinion than me because they are evil and stupid. If they say they have different other information they are lying. It's black and white people. BLACK and WHITE.

[JackieLikesVariety]

Nonny, you should get an avatar that matches you better.

I mean that as a compliment.

of course unions are striking for a living wage and better working conditions.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

Sure, my wife was a teacher and protected by a union. Teachers were granted tenure after three years - it wouldn't save a job if there were staff reductions, but otherwise they were there to protect jobs. Sometimes for teachers that weren't as effective as they should have been, but in general it was a good thing.

An example: My wife student taught with a teacher that had progressive and highly effective methods. After graduation, she was hired by a city public school that had an old fashioned and unimaginative principal. My wife was interested in implementing some better teaching methods and was thwarted by the principal who didn't want anything to change. So my wife waited until she was tenured and then requested a meeting with the superintendent and principal. The supt. got really interested in what my wife wanted to do, and authorized my wife to change things up. My wife made an enemy for life with the principal. If there were no unions or tenure, my wife would be out on the street. So yeah, nobody getting rich but unions are still pretty good about keeping employees from getting fired so someone's nephew could get hired.

And I'll back off on my no crossing principle: If a bunch of CEOs and Trump supporters chose to picket the restaurant that refused to serve Sara Huckabee Sanders, I would cross that line in a New York minute.

Whatever. My real world example is in Post 21 which Zeener was the only one to address it. That specific union won’t get my support. All of the rest of them will so far.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by hajario

Whatever.

Well argued, sir.

Originally Posted by hajario

My real world example is in Post 21 which Zeener was the only one to address it. That specific union won’t get my support. All of the rest of them will so far.

Then let me take a stab at it. You specifically mentioned "future coworkers" as getting less money. And that's the thing. You apply for a job, find out what the pay and benefits are and you decide to take the job or not. Current employees have been paying union dues and expect their union to support them. Not to mention they probably depended on their jobs. The union has no idea who will be employed in the future. I don't particularly think this is all that fair if the new employees are doing the same work, but it falls into the category of seniority and a lot of people feel that they should be rewarded for loyalty to the company and their union.

[kayaker]

I felt bad for my daughter when she came home from college for the summer and got a job cashiering at a grocery store. Her entire first paycheck went toward dues for Local Whatever.

Her next summer she said fuck that and just waitressed. I stopped in and had a cup of coffee. Left a $40 tip. Found out later the waitresses pooled their tips.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

Well argued, sir.

There's nothing to argue. That was in response to Smartie and whether one should support a picket line no matter what even, apparently, with an extreme example that likely won't happen.

Originally Posted by hajario

My real world example is in Post 21 which Zeener was the only one to address it. That specific union won’t get my support. All of the rest of them will so far.

Originally Posted by Nonny J. Nonnington III

Then let me take a stab at it. You specifically mentioned "future coworkers" as getting less money. And that's the thing. You apply for a job, find out what the pay and benefits are and you decide to take the job or not. Current employees have been paying union dues and expect their union to support them. Not to mention they probably depended on their jobs. The union has no idea who will be employed in the future. I don't particularly think this is all that fair if the new employees are doing the same work, but it falls into the category of seniority and a lot of people feel that they should be rewarded for loyalty to the company and their union.

That's not what it was. Of course seniority should count for something. I am perfectly fine with a tiered system based on years of service. I am not in favor of a totally separate set of shitty tiers for all people hired after x date which is what that union did at least three times. The last time after swearing they wouldn't budge on that.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Having been in a union that wanted promotion and pay increases for years of service ONLY, I saw it as the union actually spoiling worker initiative and not wanting a meritocracy. It also helps them maintain the fiction that you owe everything to the union and nothing to yourself for, you know, doing good work.

[Dragonlady]

My Union is apparently only concerned with getting better stuff for senior employees.

Twice in 15 years they have taken LARGE ($5. per hour or more) pay CUTS for new hires.
Yep - get hired on and make significantly less than the carrier doing the same job next to you. And you never get even - every raise is the same for both groups. And when we make regular (get our own route) WE start at 3 steps below step 1. Takes almost 5 years for us to make what other crafts are making day 1.

[Jaglavak]

That's what I'm saying. They're always ready to sell out other workers. In my case instead of $5/hr difference it was four times more, and they thought that was a real knee slapper too. And it's not like I was just a helper, I was doing the same work. It's been my experience that the unions are basically fuck you, here's to me. I know the union helps some folks but I want nothing to do with them.