Right, I understand. I just mean -- look at the 1800's. The hours were longer, automation caused there to be a labor reserve army, and there were fewer laws in place.

I don't think the working class has disappeared, though it's not a topic for USian political parties. Like you say, it's all middle-class based talking points.

But it's not like the house of commons during Marx's time was the most progressive force, either. It took organizing then, and it took organizing during the 1900's to maintain those victories which brought about a kind of golden age of labor, and that's what it would take today. And really it'll depend upon the workers. Not my little opinions on the matter.

It might have to get worse before people want to make it better, though. Most workers are not fighters. They just want the best for them and their family, and fear is an effective motivator.

Ok I understand your point. However, I think that if they scab, then the union might oust them from the union as they scabbed even if it is unsuccessful. This will lead to the consequence of starving further down the road.

It might have to get worse before people want to make it better, though. Most workers are not fighters. They just want the best for them and their family, and fear is an effective motivator. — Moliere

So is hope - I hope! From 1800 to 1980, it was a rocky, stop-and-start, blood-spattered upward path. Since 1980, it has quite reversed incline, at least on the western slope. But was never going to be a rematch or a repossession of lost ground: it's an all new challenge, every decade.
I think it's time to ditch all the old forms. Think not in terms of bosses and lackeys, but independence. Automation could give us that, if we used it well.

I think it's time to ditch all the old forms. — Vera Mont

:D

A saying after my heart. But I've mellowed out. Union structures work to give some semblance of power to working people. The old forms stick around because they still work better than nothing, and also because the old form of capital is still around. It hasn't changed that much, except to grow larger and become better at divide and conquer.

But I'm afraid I have to say one should think in terms of bosses and workers, when looking at political economy. Or at least the bourgeoisie, if not the lieutenants of capital. As a socialist surely you agree here? Automation can give us good things if used well, but to be used well the workers need to have a say in political economy?

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. — javi2541997

They become ones when they have lots of political power, yes. But so I guess happens to any group that has a say in public matters.

However let's get something straight: it is extremely idiotic not to have trade unions.

It's simply logical and rational to unionize. It has nothing to do with a leftist ideology and that's what many Americans don't understand. Trade unions aren't equivalent to socialism or socialist ideas. For example, 98% of all active military officers in the Finnish Armed Forces are members of their trade union, the Officer's Union. 98% participation level in a trade union you seldom find anywhere. And it's hard to find a group that isn't leftist and is traditionally conservative (although by law when active cannot take part in politics or be a member of a political party). In fact, the trade union itself was established in 1918 right after the Whites had won the Civil War and beaten the Reds, so I guess these guys forming their union weren't singing the International as they had just killed or put into camps those chaps had sang the song, had waved the red flags and wanted to be a part of the socialist experiment.

Yet when you have trade union membership being very low or nonexistent, then the employers can nearly do whatever they want. Especially if your country has low social cohesion and strict class lines, it's only worse. Then the answer of "get another job" is quite hollow as the job market simply sucks.

Most of the users of TPF are citizens from Anglo-Saxon countries which their economy goes on forward and they tend to have a lot of job opportunities. So, they give for granted that if a strike fails, well just go to another job or whatever. — javi2541997

Well, the US is like the Western Europe except everybody speaks English and have nearly the same customs, culture and preferences. That's then an easy solution to move around. But going to a different country, learning a new language and getting accustomed there is a totally different and a harder thing. Hence if your country is just the size of Minnesota and only there they speak the language you know, then when that country's economy goes down the drain, people cannot just move somewhere else.

Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually? This is why I started this OP. — javi2541997

Well, as an individual the worker naturally makes those choices individually. And of course, sometimes going on strike can get you a lot of improvements, especially when you (or the union) has (figuratively speaking) the balls of the employers in their hands. Or if the workers are crucial to the economy. Hence if the odds are that you and the union can be successful, then why not go on strike to try to either improve things or at least fight against "deregulation", attempts of getting rid off everything the unions have achieved earlier. Again, your "collective" decision to be with the union doesn't overrule that the welfare of you and your family is what it's about to you.

Although, there could be many alternatives and "additions" in these dilemmas, I think it is worthy to debate on how the individual decides to not follow up the group (duty of omission) because of personal circumstances. — javi2541997

Ok. Again, your scenario allows for removal of all group supports until the individual eventually decides not to follow the group. You want, perhaps, to conclude that ultimately we are individualistic, but all you would be entitled to conclude is that folk will turn there back on an overly demanding and unsupportive group.

Well, it is interesting to see that mafia trade unions share the same industry/commerce: trucks and transportation. To understand how poisonous can a trade union be, we have to look at Jimmy Hoffa's story. Hoffa became involved with organized crime from the early years of his Teamsters work, a connection that continued until his disappearance in 1975. He was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud in 1964 in two separate trials. He was imprisoned in 1967 and sentenced to 13 years. In mid-1971. — javi2541997

The one I was thinking of was learned of in passing, and I rather like my legs.

It takes a lot of bravery to organize on a shop floor, or youthful anger (as others have already pointed out). It takes even more bravery to try to organize the honest way if the mafia is involved. Some organizers have done that, but not me. But because some organizers have done that this is how I know they still exist (and that the answer is always organizing).

But it's a rare case. I mentioned it as an obvious example of when unions can go bad. I don't think anyone should just blindly believe that because there's a union it's a good thing. It could be a bad union. There are examples of that.

The thing is: you can either leave your job, or organize. Sometimes the fight is too much for some people, and I understand that. Human beings are frail and weak. Duty is something that's a bit out of reach for most of us, though it can be inspiring.

I just don't think you can frame scabbing, in particular, as a dutiful action. It really is as selfish as I described: you're picking your own family over the families of your coworkers. A lot of people have sympathy for that position, but think on the categorical imperative: if everyone scabs then there's no strike to scab and everyone is back at work. I understand that duty need not follow the CI, but it's a pretty well worked out example of a philosophical theory of duty at least. So I have my doubts.

The Gurindji strike, 1966 lasted from 1966 to 1975. Extraordinary patience.

More generally, Unionisation is a just reaction to incorporation. Capitalists group together in order to limit their exposure, and are protected by law. This puts individual workers at a disadvantage, which is partially remediated by their grouping together in a Union.

It hasn't changed that much, except to grow larger and become better at divide and conquer. — Moliere

It will. The whole metaphorical cardboard structure is coming down.

But I'm afraid I have to say one should think in terms of bosses and workers, when looking at political economy. Or at least the bourgeoisie, if not the lieutenants of capital. As a socialist surely you agree here? Automation can give us good things if used well, but to be used well the workers need to have a say in political economy? — Moliere

Yeees... only... Well, let's say both the political and economic landscape of the future are as yet unmapped. But I think that speculation belongs elsewhere.

There are so many inspiring stories in the history of labor. Thanks for sharing, I didn't know that one.

Yeees... only... Well, let's say both the political and economic landscape of the future are as yet unmapped. But I think that speculation belongs elsewhere. — Vera Mont

Heh, yes.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. — javi2541997

They become ones when they have lots of political power, yes. But so I guess happens to any group that has a say in public matters. — ssu

Like jillionnaires with political hacks spilling out of every pocket?

Well, the US is like the Western Europe except everybody speaks English and have nearly the same customs, culture and preferences. — ssu

Have you actually been in the US? Or watched American movies? Or listened to NBC?

Ok I understand your point. However, I think that if they scab, then the union might oust them from the union as they scabbed even if it is unsuccessful. This will lead to the consequence of starving further down the road. — Justin5679

And that's how a coercive mobster works, folks!

By the way, I think @Vera Mont is a leader of a Canadian writers trade union, and that's why she is defending this collective so hardly. :razz:

The ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker pay soared to 399-to-1 under EPI’s realized measure of CEO pay, the highest ratio on record, up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a massive increase from 59-to-1 in 1989. — Vera Mont

There are a lot of sectors in business world --besides companies-- where such an inequality --and even worse-- is happening, unfortunately. See what's happening in the world of sports, for instance: top tennis players, NBA players, top football/soccer teams, etc. They are 10 to 100 times the money their fellow players of the next category, who also try hard and play their guts out in every match. Totally unfair. In fact, a shame IMO.

There are also those cases in the areas ofcompetition, where some companies are using uses illicit practices --just reaching the limits of illegal practices-- that have made a lot of owners, like Bill Gates (classic case), billionaires and thousands other millionaires.

Things began to change for these communities in the 1980s, when American corporations began to outsource production and re-engineer their organizations to adapt to globalization. — Vera Mont

Interesting.

Millions of Americans struggle to get by on low wages, ... — Vera Mont

All this is quite sad, indeed.
Greece, I believe, is one of the worst countries in tax administration. As I said, I was a freelancer, and in Greece they hate this genre because half of them use to hide their real income. So, what they did and still do is to hit them with all sort of indirect taxes, discontinuing tax exemptions, etc. They don't care about the other half of them, who are honest and state their full income. On the other hand, although they tout every now and about hunting the big tax evaders (dodgers), who only become richer and better in dodging.
And I feel myself quite lucky that I have a pension, however small it is and which has not been upgraded since I first received it, about 6 years ago, during which time the cost of life has risen about 30%!

I fully agree. :up:

Like jillionnaires with political hacks spilling out of every pocket? — Vera Mont

Those too, especially if their jillion dollars are made thanks to those contacts to politicians and influence over political decision making.

Have you actually been in the US? Or watched American movies? Or listened to NBC? — Vera Mont

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Speaking fluently Spanish and then have to speak fluently Finnish is here in Europe is the problem. You see, in the US many speak Spanish, but you usually CAN BE, let's say working in customer service, if you speak English. Even with a dialect.

I voted to go on strike.

Now where’s my union strike check? :wink:

But I understand the position and choice of those who cross the picket line.

Now where’s my union strike check? :wink: — 0 thru 9

Hehe :snicker:

But I understand the position and choice of those who cross the picket line. — 0 thru 9

Yes, exactly. That was the main point of this thread, trying to understand why some workers decide to go to work, or at least have some empathy instead of calling them "scabs!"

I have empathy, but they're still scabs. I understand why they're doing it, but the choice they're making is still "My family is more important than your family".

I don't think we, as philosophers, should give the scabs anything more than the truth. The truth is they are choosing themselves over the other families to the point that they are willing to sacrifice the other families who are benefiting workers for their own family.

That, even if you don't call them such, is a scab. And once the strike is over the scab will get picked off by the boss, eventually, because they already did what the boss wanted, and the new recruits won't remember all the conflict from before.

It's your claim to duty that I'm challenging. I empathize with people lesser because I'm lesser. But I don't claim that I'm good for that reason.

My intention wasn't ignore the other families. I am aware that every home has its own problems and we should not put someone's above the other's.

According to your argument, you consider scabs as selfish people. And I think it depends on the context, that's why I put a sensitive example in the dilemma. It is not the same crossing the picket line just because you are afraid of being sacked than having other kind of duties.

To be honest, I think that judging a scab is pretty easy because he is the "bad apple". Yet, I wanted to (at least) give a try and reasoning, and see why some workers scab instead of acting collectively.
On the other hand, I feel bad for the scab, because when the strike ends the rest of the works would ghosting them. Even though that he acted in good faith in every moment, and I do not consider them vicious.

It is fascinating because the act of acting individually in modern society is punished by the group, whether you have reasons to do so. My conclusion is that we have to cooperate, because others would see us as "selfish", "traitor", "a black sheep", etc.

My conclusion is that we have to cooperate, because others would see us as "selfish", "traitor", "a black sheep", etc. — javi2541997

Heh. That's an interesting conclusion, at least for myself, because I would push against it while maintaining that we have to cooperate. pointed out how the owners of firms are already incorporated, and the workers are only kinda-sorta incorporated.

If I were the King of Rules, or some such nonsense, I'd say that every firm must be a closed shop.

Or: we have to cooperate because we're human beings.

It is not the same crossing the picket line just because you are afraid of being sacked than having other kind of duties. — javi2541997

I think your first example is a bit of a fiction. It's not the same, but anyone in that situation isn't crossing the picket line because they're afraid of being sacked. I'll bring it back to my opening response: it's because their anger dried out and they've come back to their fear. The scabs believe the boss will win, which sometimes the boss does win, and so they go back over to the boss's side.

But sometimes the workers win too.

(EDIT: And either way, I'm still maintaining that duty can't justify choosing the path of the scab. It's not a duty. It's a selfish action, which we all do all the time. It's merely not dutiful)

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

Where have you heard that from?
Unions are paid by their members; they don't pay their members!

I get most countries don't really understand socialism and welfare and this might sound really wild but in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers, which is funded by union member contributions. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakingskas

Unions are an essential element in a progressive and democratic society, and they are a vital protection for workers -- provided they are strong. — BC

There are cons and prons with labor unions ...

Pros
1. Unions provide worker protections.
2. Unions promote higher wages and better benefits.
3. Unions are economic trend setters.
4. Unions make political organizing is easier.
Cons
1. Unions require dues and fees that some workers do not want to pay.
2. Labor unions discourage individuality
3. Unions make it harder to promote and terminate workers.
4. Unions can drive up costs. (This works against worker salaries.)

(Source:https://www.hrexchangenetwork.com/hr-compensation-benefits/articles/pros-and-cons-of-labor-unions)

Employees in non-union workplaces can approach a manager or business owner directly and negotiate an individual wage increase, benefits package or contract. The option to negotiate directly can yield significant advantages for highly productive employees.
(Source: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-nonunionized-workplace-18433.html)

The boss's weapon is fear, the union's weapon is anger.
I prefer anger to fear. — Moliere

I believe these two are incompatible with each other as to the direction and recipient of the effect (fear and anger).
Fear works against the employees. Anger --as I can assume from how you put it-- works against the company. So I can't see how you can select between the two ...

The United States is not the best example of how unionisation works. — Banno

You don't know about the unionization in Greece! :grin:

In fact, only social democratic countries --real ones, not those governed by leftish (allegedly "socialist") parties, in alternation with rightist ones-- that is, European Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and then Norway) are good examples.

think the best option would be to adhere to the duty of commission. I say this because like John Stuart Mill stated — Justin5679

John Stuart Mill, in the quote you brought in, speaks from an idealistic viewpoint. He talks about "liberty" and "necessity". Here we have a specific, real-life, actual case, in which the notion of "liberty" is not even involved. As for "necessity", well, if supporting one's family is not a necessity, what is?

in the Netherlands every union has money saved up for strikes to enable them to pay strikers — Benkei

I can hardly believe this. Have you any reference in which a Dutch union pays its members in the case of strikes? But even if this were true, it will be an exception. So, I save you the trouble of searching for such a reference! :smile:

The 'pros' and 'cons' list is not balanced. The 'pro' side is far stronger than the 'con' side.

#1 under 'cons' is that some workers may dislike paying dues, when dues are what makes #1, 2, and 3 in the 'pros' list possible. # 2 under 'cons' is mostly not true. #3 involves the inconvenience to the company of following contractual process, particularly in firing, #4 is true only from a company point of view -- the costs that unions raise are the wages that workers are paid.

Employees in non-union workplaces can approach a manager or business owner directly and negotiate an individual wage increase, benefits package or contract. — Alkis Piskas

True, but the individual worker has little leverage by himself. Unionism is designed to give leverage to all workers (in the union).

Wages and working conditions are better when workers are organized.

My understanding is that American unions generally pay their members during a strike. The amount paid will likely be considerably less than the wage received, and only the largest unions (like United Auto Workers or Teamsters) will be able to pay strikers throughout a long strike. Individual strikers can not collect unemployment; they can pay the company's health insurance individual premium, if they can afford it, in order to maintain individual health care coverage.