opinion of 'scabs'

[Nym90]

I agree that anyone engaging in physical violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There are already laws against those type of actions, of course, and they should be enforced.

[A18]

I agree that anyone engaging in physical violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There are already laws against those type of actions, of course, and they should be enforced.

Yes, I think any sane person would agree on that (no, not opebo).

[TomC]

I am a union member

Wait until waltermitty sees this...

whatever...

A scab is a person who crosses the picket line while workers are striking...either an employee who doesn't honor the strike, or someone who is hired to replace the striking workers. Sometimes they are extremely mistreated, like bricks through car windows and crappy stuf like that.

If I was governor of a state, I would crack down on those criminal thugs like they've never been cracked down on before. Which should be easy, as they've never been cracked down ob before.

Anyone who throws a brick gets shot. Anyone who inflicts serious physical damage upon a worker gets the death penalty by lethal injection the same day.

So you support hate crimes? I do not. The crime is the crime, not the thought that instigates it. But yes, assault should be a serious crime as should destruction of private property.

[dazzleman]

I'm not a huge fan of unions, though I think that under certain circumstances, they are a necessary evil.

Everything has a risk/reward to it, and strikes are not different. Going on strike is a risk, and in order to maintain a balance, there has to be a potential downside, just as there is a potential upside.

I don't think it's wrong in a generic sense for a person to be a "scab." If workers are not doing their job, companies have a right to bring in others to do it, and those people have a right to accept those job offers.

I have never belonged to a union or gone on strike, so it's hard for me to bring a personal perspective to this issue. I imagine I wouldn't like scabs much if I were on strike and I thought the strike was fair.

Yes, they definitely are a necessarily evil. In a perfect world, corporations would treat their employees well enough that there would be no need for unions.

But at the end of the day, workers have to have some line of defense against corporations that insist on overstepping their bounds. Workers and management need to be seen as equal partners in the functioning of any corporation, and neither should be seen as superior to or more important to the other. Both have a vital role to play. Unions are just an acknowledgement of the idea that workers have rights, and that management does not have the right to simply do whatever they want to.

So strikes are likewise a necessary evil, a last line of defense. Workers don't get paid while they are on strike, so I think there's already a pretty big potential risk there for the employees. Workers are more likely than management to be hurt personally by a strike, so it's silly to think that strikes occur on a whim, or some such, without there being something vital at stake for the workers.

Strikes can be very costly for employers, also.  Disruption of work can mean lost business, etc.  So the risk is not only to the workers.

In my career, I have not experienced the gulf between workers and management that exists in many blue-collar industries.  In my profession, even the entry-level professional aspires to management, and believes he/she has a reasonable chance of getting there.  I guess that is the big difference.  Also, as they move up the chain, professionals develop specialized skills, and this gives them bargaining power on an individual basis that blue-collar workers who are not highly skilled lack.

The issue is really replacability of workers.  Workers who are easily replaced and have skills that are plentiful on the open market have little bargaining power, even with a union.  I think we've seen that in the failure of unions to do anything for clerical white collar workers.  If workers are highly skilled, and a company will have a lot of lost output during a retraining period after they are replaced, those workers have more of a bargaining position.

I have never been in a union and always been treated well to date by employers in jobs I have had after college, but I realize that is not everybody's experience.  When I worked during college, I saw how employers will sometimes squeeze less skilled employees because they are so easy to replace.

[ATFFL]

They are self-destructive, but driven to it by desperation.

Anyone wanna bet he did not know what a scab is?

[dazzleman]

They are self-destructive, but driven to it by desperation.

Anyone wanna bet he did not know what a scab is?

Oh, I think opebo knows exactly what a scab is.  I'll give him that much.  He's reading from his Karl Marx hymnal again.

[opebo]

Obviously I know what a scab is, but what I'm wondering is - do you people know your class?  I think a lot of you disparaging unions and praising scabs are working class.  Your stance is not in your interest - such a position is only in your interest if you are an owner.

[John Dibble]

Obviously I know what a scab is, but what I'm wondering is - do you people know your class?  I think a lot of you disparaging unions and praising scabs are working class.  Your stance is not in your interest - such a position is only in your interest if you are an owner.

If a union's practices and demands get such that an owner goes out of business, it's certainly not in our interest. And you forget, many of us are skilled labor - we have lots more power on our own as far as negotiating goes.

[opebo]

Obviously I know what a scab is, but what I'm wondering is - do you people know your class?  I think a lot of you disparaging unions and praising scabs are working class.  Your stance is not in your interest - such a position is only in your interest if you are an owner.

If a union's practices and demands get such that an owner goes out of business, it's certainly not in our interest. And you forget, many of us are skilled labor - we have lots more power on our own as far as negotiating goes.

For the moment.  As soon as more desperate workers manage to buy those skills, your position is undermined. 

As for going out of business, that's where universality of unionization or legislation of wage laws creates a level playing field.

[John Dibble]

Obviously I know what a scab is, but what I'm wondering is - do you people know your class?  I think a lot of you disparaging unions and praising scabs are working class.  Your stance is not in your interest - such a position is only in your interest if you are an owner.

If a union's practices and demands get such that an owner goes out of business, it's certainly not in our interest. And you forget, many of us are skilled labor - we have lots more power on our own as far as negotiating goes.

For the moment.  As soon as more desperate workers manage to buy those skills, your position is undermined. 

It takes more than money to gain skills. It also takes ability and/or talent. If you think people are equal in either you are an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can't universalize laws in other countries.

[opebo]

It takes more than money to gain skills. It also takes ability and/or talent. If you think people are equal in either you are an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course 'free trade' is a political choice.  In any case if competing means impoverishment, why would the working class choose it politically?  Might make more sense to let sweatshops close and go on welfare.

[/quote]

[John Dibble]

It takes more than money to gain skills. It also takes ability and/or talent. If you think people are equal in either you are an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course 'free trade' is a political choice.  In any case if competing means impoverishment, why would the working class choose it politically?  Might make more sense to let sweatshops close and go on welfare.

[/quote]

1. Use the preview button when dealing with quotes.

2. Bull. Some people have biological traits that increase their abilities.

3. Your understanding of economics is pathetic. Eliminate free trade with other nations and you'll only bring us down further.

[opebo]

It takes more than money to gain skills. It also takes ability and/or talent. If you think people are equal in either you are an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course 'free trade' is a political choice.  In any case if competing means impoverishment, why would the working class choose it politically?  Might make more sense to let sweatshops close and go on welfare.

2. Bull. Some people have biological traits that increase their abilities.[/quote]

Like what?  Race?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that very well.  But you are forgetting that every advantage or disadvantage is from someone's point of view.  The economics that benefits one class may harm another.

However that said I am for 'free' trade, as long as people who are laid of are provided with very generous and not time-limited welfare.

[John Dibble]

It takes more than money to gain skills. It also takes ability and/or talent. If you think people are equal in either you are an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course 'free trade' is a political choice.  In any case if competing means impoverishment, why would the working class choose it politically?  Might make more sense to let sweatshops close and go on welfare.

2. Bull. Some people have biological traits that increase their abilities.

Like what?  Race?[/quote]

Yes and no on race. Those of the same race may have similar biological traits and genetics. But I was not pointing out race in particular. There are black people who are smarter than the average white person, so race has it's limits as far as measuring intelligence goes. To use a person's race's average IQ score to guess theirs can be a risky move.

Biological traits are affected by many factors, mainly genetics, but some things like prenatal development and nutrition can have things to do with it. Genetics will be the basis for potential of one's intelligence, and environment(both psychological and chemical) will build upon that to determine the ultimate result - both factors are important, but it's foolish to deny the existence of either of them. The importance of each has not been determined exactly, but there is strong evidence for genetics having a large amount to do with it.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html



"A large number of the study of twins reared apart was undertaken by Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota starting in 1979. He “collected” pairs of separated twins from all over the world and reunited them while testing their personalities and IQs. Other studies at the same time concentrated on comparing the IQs of adopted people with those of their adopted parents and their biological parents or their siblings. Put all these studies together, which include the IQ tests of tens of thousands of individuals, and the table looks like this:

Same person tested twice 87%
Identical twins reared together 86%
Identical twins reared apart 76%
Fraternal twins reared together 55%
Biological siblings reared together 47% (studies show that reared apart about 24%)
Parents and children living together 40%
Parents and children living apart 31%
Adopted children living together 0%
Unrelated people living apart 0%"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that very well.  But you are forgetting that every advantage or disadvantage is from someone's point of view.  The economics that benefits one class may harm another.

However that said I am for 'free' trade, as long as people who are laid of are provided with very generous and not time-limited welfare.
[/quote]

I repeat, you don't understand economics. I look at things from more than just the point of view of an individual when it comes to economics. You have to look at the bigger picture. Any time you restrict free trade you will bring down almost everyone's quality of life. And high taxes for a welfare state aren't that great either in the long term.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My opinion of scabs (or rather the people who lead the scabs) is coloured by what happend in the '84 Miners Strike (which was hardly typical of *anything*...) and I think as far as that strike goes there needs to be distinction between people who did it because they feltl they need the money (these people general hate themselves for it and would never seem themselves as "freedom fighters") and people who co-operated with the Government Thugs* (sorry... "police"). The latter (obviously) lead the former and many have done well out of it financially. The former are a tragic case, the latter are scum.

As a general point, the ignorance of unions in general shown on the internet is pretty shocking.

*No joke

[angus]

option 1 for me!

don't much give a flying fukk about 'em one way or other.

long as someone's manning the cash register when I walk in Wal-Mart to buy a cheap bottle I'm happy.  Don't care whether it's a union schmuk or a scab or a overweight black female high-school dropout with seven children, bad breath, and the inability to make change without the aid of an electronic cash register.  So long as that cash register is working and there's someone behind it. 

And that's what I like about the GOP 

[opebo]

option 1 for me!

don't much give a flying fukk about 'em one way or other.

long as someone's manning the cash register when I walk in Wal-Mart to buy a cheap bottle I'm happy.  Don't care whether it's a union schmuk or a scab or a overweight black female high-school dropout with seven children, bad breath, and the inability to make change without the aid of an electronic cash register.  So long as that cash register is working and there's someone behind it. 

And that's what I like about the GOP 

What if they pee in your wine?

[angus]

AAAAAAAAh.   always you must have the last word.  fine.  okay, if the bitch pees in my wine then I'd probably rethink it, and eventually I'd support her entry into a union which, among other policies such as mandatory minimum wage and benefits, forbids disposal of urinary-tract excretions in processed food products meant for sale to me.  Just me.  You're on your own.

[opebo]

AAAAAAAAh.   always you must have the last word.  fine.  okay, if the bitch pees in my wine then I'd probably rethink it, and eventually I'd support her entry into a union which, among other policies such as mandatory minimum wage and benefits, forbids disposal of urinary-tract excretions in processed food products meant for sale to me.  Just me.  You're on your own.

I don't buy any liquids at WalMart.  Only consumer electronics which can be returned before the 90-day return period is up.  Folks, never pay for consumer electronics - just borrow them.

[John Dibble]

AAAAAAAAh.   always you must have the last word.  fine.  okay, if the bitch pees in my wine then I'd probably rethink it, and eventually I'd support her entry into a union which, among other policies such as mandatory minimum wage and benefits, forbids disposal of urinary-tract excretions in processed food products meant for sale to me.  Just me.  You're on your own.

I don't buy any liquids at WalMart.  Only consumer electronics which can be returned before the 90-day return period is up.  Folks, never pay for consumer electronics - just borrow them.

And opebo further shows he's just a leech on society.

[TeePee4Prez]

Negative. 

[angus]

how do you vote if it just leaves you flacid?  When I see scabs I don't get a raging hard-on, but I can't say they piss me off either.

does the lack of positive imply negative in this case?

[angus]

ah, well.  Is there anyone else out there who voted for Bill Clinton and George Bush.  Must be someone else besides me.  Dole certainly left me with a windsock, as did Gore.  But with the scab question, it's not like it's Scab versus Bob Dole or something like that, so you have a basis of comparison, know what I mean?