No fuck that. The days of legitimate worker strikes because of unfair wages or unsafe working conditions are a century past. Striking union workers today do so because the union tells them to, and usually because the union is trying to play hardball in negotiations with the employer. Why? Usually because the employer balks at something like doubling wages, fully paid insurance for life, or an obscene amount of paid vacation. Greedy unions and entitled union employees are what have driven the cost of "made in America" way the hell up and the quality way the hell down, and have driven so many employers out of the country.
Story time; the last time I saw a picket line I stopped out of morbid curiosity and asked why they were striking. I was told by everyone there that they didn't know why, they were only there because they were paid by the union to hold signs. I only buy from non-unionized stores and manufacturers and when I see picket lines I give em the old one finger salute.
Yeah.... I mean, there are many valid arguments that are either against the unions, or against strikes, or pro union or pro strike but anti corruption etc- but workers do have legitimate reasons to complain and thinking capitalism is self regulating is a fantasy. “Too big to fail” sums it up. The system we have doesn’t encourage competition or really even welcome it- it’s designed around entrenchment. Simply put- the goal of capitalism is to offer profit incentive for you to make the best pizza- and for someone else to make a better pizza and take your place. It’s not a system designed around stagnation.
But the rules are set up to make it difficult for you to try- Difficult to find footing or even get off the ground. The rules aren’t set up to encourage and assist the person with the better product or ideas to topple the #1 and force them to innovate harder and try harder to get their place back or keep from falling- they’re set up to keep them there- and prop them up if they start to fall. So it isn’t blind entitled greed that primarily motivates outrage at the system- it’s the desire to have a shot. Plenty of people work hard and are amazing but won’t ever be rich- not because they don’t have what it takes but because they lack connections and opportunities. We regulate industry to prevent it. Stability works best for people at the top.
storytime: My mum asked me to pick her up from work as the union, which she was not part of, were protesting and she was concerned about an altercation. As we left, someone threw something at my car, I got out, and asked who, when no one owned up to it, I pointed out there were several hundred cowards standing there to me, and I was intimidating them all, so how could they possibly hope to get what they want from the company. Several abusive remarks later, the thrower never owned up, next day, i parked my car right in front of them.
SHUT UP YOU FUCKING COMMIES.
.
Now, to actually break this down. First off not all strikes are just, so before you support or denounce anything, you look at the claims and make a judgement yourself, and if you don;t know shit about it, you get on with your life. You are not obliged to support anything.
Second, no protest has a right to obstruct movement of citizens, so if there is one in the way, you ignore it and if they try to stop you, tell them to go fuck themselves.
Thirdly, mob justice and union overreach is a poison to the free market, so be very skeptical about giving them any real control over the situation. Does not mean their concerns cannot be addressed, only that they don't get unearned rights over the company itself.
So, advice number 1 is disqualified because no protest has a legal right to obstruct the movement of citizens.
.
Number 2 is disqualified because that choice is up to you and your conscience, not the mentality of "the worker is always oppressed and therefore right".
.
Numbers 3 is out for the same reason.
.
Number 4 is particularly dumb and irresponsible, because in order to participate in the protest, PEOPLE HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PROTEST. Or at least know what it's about or why in the first place.
.
Number 5 is yet again disqualified because not every protest is just, and it is wrong to assume so in the first place.
And even if these were invalid criticizms, here is the final nail on the coffin. This is a neo-marxist propaganda leaflet. The focus on power politics, on workers, on "phobic" language, and implication of moral guilt for not supporting them.
.
The base premise of marxism, which is then extrapolated into fracturing versions of communism, is the division of people into classes of "oppressor" and "oppressed". Originally this was between the capitalists, the factory owners, and the proletariat, the workers in those factories. This was 200 years ago, but these morons didn't get the memo.
.
Now, the innovations that came with neo-marxism are the same things that we see illustrated in the rest of the radical left today. Namely, ascription of moral guilt for holding a different viewpoint - never purchase from a company who the strike is against, because that makes you a bad person. "phobic language", just the same as everyone getting accused of being islamophobic, transphobic, etc.
And, most importantly the dimension of power. This is what marxism has always been about, but here they don't even hide it. Join in the protest and obey the people running it, because if you are not with them, you are against them and you're fair game. And the last point outlines it so well. "who has all the money and power". Because that's all this is about. It's a power grab, plain and simple.
.
@xvarnah, @firmlee_grasspit
1
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
Me: *sees downvotes on this thread*
Also me: Why_are_you_booing.meme
Many people, especially low income people, may not have transportation and resources to go anywhere but a certain business. They may fully support a strike in principal but need to buy groceries or whatever. Making them feel guilty about feeding their families or even causing them loss of status in the community for feeding their families doesn’t seem right.
The idea that “absolutely” cannot cross a picket line or do business with a company seeing a strike helps those in power over the unions by instilling universal fear that a strike is a guaranteed tool to choke any industry. To have any powers strike must be supported by the consumer. Now- there are strong communist parallels in a working class collective in opposition to the rich and a concept of workers seizing the means of production- but the i cant say the concept is entirely communist- or that is is more communist than the system it’s a part of anyway.
One of my cousins (or their friend - can't remember) had a baby that had very specific nutritional needs and could only eat a specific type of baby food due to health reasons. It was a specialty brand/type. Only one chain nearby carried this food, and the workers were on strike. When she attempted to cross the picket like they harassed her most of the way, and one person even tried to actively block and guilt her about going in. Can't remember her exact words, but she basically told them to get the ever living fuck out of her way. They also harassed their co-workers who weren't in agreement with, or couldn't afford to take part in the strike.
'
So, while sometimes strikes are necessary/effective, this post, as @vitklim and most people have pointed out, is garbage. Just my two cents
So Charlottesville is over I guess
Story time; the last time I saw a picket line I stopped out of morbid curiosity and asked why they were striking. I was told by everyone there that they didn't know why, they were only there because they were paid by the union to hold signs. I only buy from non-unionized stores and manufacturers and when I see picket lines I give em the old one finger salute.
.
Now, to actually break this down. First off not all strikes are just, so before you support or denounce anything, you look at the claims and make a judgement yourself, and if you don;t know shit about it, you get on with your life. You are not obliged to support anything.
Second, no protest has a right to obstruct movement of citizens, so if there is one in the way, you ignore it and if they try to stop you, tell them to go fuck themselves.
Thirdly, mob justice and union overreach is a poison to the free market, so be very skeptical about giving them any real control over the situation. Does not mean their concerns cannot be addressed, only that they don't get unearned rights over the company itself.
.
Number 2 is disqualified because that choice is up to you and your conscience, not the mentality of "the worker is always oppressed and therefore right".
.
Numbers 3 is out for the same reason.
.
Number 4 is particularly dumb and irresponsible, because in order to participate in the protest, PEOPLE HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PROTEST. Or at least know what it's about or why in the first place.
.
Number 5 is yet again disqualified because not every protest is just, and it is wrong to assume so in the first place.
.
The base premise of marxism, which is then extrapolated into fracturing versions of communism, is the division of people into classes of "oppressor" and "oppressed". Originally this was between the capitalists, the factory owners, and the proletariat, the workers in those factories. This was 200 years ago, but these morons didn't get the memo.
.
Now, the innovations that came with neo-marxism are the same things that we see illustrated in the rest of the radical left today. Namely, ascription of moral guilt for holding a different viewpoint - never purchase from a company who the strike is against, because that makes you a bad person. "phobic language", just the same as everyone getting accused of being islamophobic, transphobic, etc.
.
@xvarnah, @firmlee_grasspit
Also me: Why_are_you_booing.meme
'
So, while sometimes strikes are necessary/effective, this post, as @vitklim and most people have pointed out, is garbage. Just my two cents