Myth of the selfish strikers: HERE WE go. It's time to blame everything on the unions again (UK).

So Gordon Brown calls the cabin crews' strike "deplorable," but the Tories and most newspapers scream that this isn't enough. Presumably, David Cameron will make a statement that starts: "This is much worse than deplorable, Gordon Brown, it's shit. Absolute shit. And I don't mean like a cow pat, that can be quite endearing in a rural setting. I mean a great squashy dollop left by an untrained Alsatian. So why doesn't the Prime Minister go ahead and say so."

Every news report seems to start with someone explaining their distress about the possible cancellation of their journey, and you expect the reporter to finish by turning to the camera and saying, "See what you've done, you unions? I covered the war in Bosnia but this beats anything that happened there. I hope you're pleased with yourselves, you bastards. And with that, back to the studio."

The strange part is that BA cabin crews don't generally come across as the selfish wrecking thugs they're now portrayed as. They mostly smile and bring you stuff, so why would 80 percent of them vote twice for a strike? Perhaps it's because the company wants to bring in new staff on inferior terms to those offered to current employees, with less security and lower wages than the current basic rate of around $27,000.

The most common response to this complaint is that the current terms can't go on because Easyjet and Ryanair pay their staff much less. And it's not fair if some people are being treated horribly, so the answer is to treat everyone horribly, and then no one feels bad...

http://socialistworker.org/2010/03/23/myth-of-the-selfish-strikers

"The people who foam with rage about unions say, "Now is not the time for a strike"--as if they want to offer it strategic advice. But if a management imposes a new set of substantially worse conditions, what is a union supposed to do? Does it wait 20 years for a quiet moment? Or maybe only bring out the retired and dead members on strike, so no one will notice, in the hope this will win over public opinion?"

All workers need to think of this. K&R

... it's about the fact that 90% of us are not in unions. When our employers decide to shit on us, our options are two, take it or quit.

In an economy like ours quitting is not an option for the vast majority of people. So, quite simply I think it's pretty easy to whip up resentment among people who don't have the luxury of a "strike".

Frankly, I don't like the balance of power between workers and management but I'm not that enamored of unions either.

and health care coverage separate from work, for instance.

Why don't you like unions? I don't want to make assumptions before I defend them; as there are lots of problems with some of today's unions...the business model ones especially... But the idea of unions protecting workers is something that needs to be revived...

General Strike by all would preclude the need to be in a union...

... but I will say that union workers are going to have to take some pain with the rest of us. The only time I get annoyed at unions is when they are operating in a vacuum, acting like everything is hunky-dory and that they should get their x% raise as normally.

... I call it equity.

they've made just so they're "equal" with you?

.. as "working up" to a union job. There are no union jobs in IT.

Your logic is nonexistent, and unions are good only when most of the country is un a union. Since that is never going to happen again, I'm not that enamored of them.

Sorry, I know I'm not a good Dem for thinking for myself.

You think the early organizers in railroads, textiles and mines had it easy? Somehow I doubt you'll face down the Pinkertons and national guard like they did.

benefits union workers do.

... I'll get right on that.

Honestly, while I'm at it I'll hunt down a unicorn that shits Skittles.

you're saying how can we make sure they get less?

Meanwhile all the workers are getting screwed. Only YOU are helping to screw workers by shitting on union members.

except, of course, for the owners - they're exempt.


i think you don't understand what holds your own wages up, even if you're non-unionized.

which is why 30 years of union-busting = stagnating & now declining wages for all.

... there has NEVER been any unionization in this industry. And if it WAS unionize it could shut the country down faster than a speeding bullet.

and i remember the tech boom well. in those days, IT workers were making the big bucks, & they were almost all libertarians, mocking the unionist clods. They didn't need no unions.

cause IT workers had a superior "skill set" doncha know.

unlike those unionized clods who just screwed nuts on bolts.

when IT crashed, i felt sorry - but there was also a slight frisson of -- what's the word? where you take pleasure in someone else's misfortune?

If the executives give up their bonuses and yearly pay raises too. If executives are getting bonuses and raises, then the workers should get the same. Too often though, executives and upper management get bonuses specifically for screwing common workers. I know my boss gets a nice bonus for keeping hours under a certain threshold.

Nice :eyes:

I spent over four months on strike for the very same reasons describe in this OP.
I had bills and a family to support, you do not qualify for un-employment benefits unless you are 'locked out'. You do get strike pay (a fund you paid into) that averages maybe $100 a week until the fund runs out. I couldn't live on $400 a month so it was not a luxury but a necessity.

You do realize we have labor laws because people like my father had the "luxury" of striking. Laws that gave us the 40 hour work week, laws against child labor and many more.
Your statement "In an economy like ours quitting is not an option for the vast majority of people." Is the best reason to pass this.
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/whatis.cfm

It hits people where it hurts. That's the entire fucking point.

"The anti-union lobby claims that it doesn't mind unions as long as they're responsible, but it's more accurate to say they don't mind unions as long as they're ineffective. They'd be happy if a union was like a church group, and told its members, "We've all been given a 40 percent wage cut, so in response, we're going to have some lovely Madeira cake and a game of whist.""

I plan to read.

It's about how the media portrays labor/unions.

When it talks about strikes, it talks about the possible inconveniences it will bring to "consumers" (because that's how a lot of the media sees us) not WHY the workers are striking, the working conditions they might be protesting against, etc.

http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Framed-Labor-and-the-Corporate-Media

:grr:

some remain silent and expect to be represented while not paying dues. :puke:

to get working people to hate unions--and government workers.

"Those union workers get a month's vacation! They get $30 an hour! They're pampered! They're overpaid!"

This is usually spoken by a media figure who spends two months of the year on vacation, one month at his time share in the Caribbean and one at his time share in Vail, who gets $300 an hour.

the unfair HCR excise tax repealed!

the unions did it for ALL middle class workers, not solely for rank and file!

yet that fight was bashed

otherwise, it amazes me how some folks (on here) are so anti-union, more generally

Oh Right, some unions are OK.