Should Public Transit Workers be Allowed to Strike?

[Simonius]

Quote by: Chancellor My what? Rights are for individuals, not groups.

And? Your argument denies them to both.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I have a hard time understanding the twisted logic that goes on around here sometimes. First of all, if you can be fired for exercising your right to strike, it is not, then, a right. It is like saying that you have freedom of speech as long as you accept the fact that you can be arrested for exercising that right. Second, being uneducated, undereducated or stupid does not mean the more educated or better compensated have the right to pay you anything they damn well please. That argument is stupid on it's face. It makes no more logical or moral sense than arguing that you should be paid less as a doctor if you can't dunk a basketball. If I can do the job without the skill and the wage is unfair, the wage is unfair. Nobody is suggesting that unskilled labor be paid at the same rate as skilled labor. What is being suggested is that striking is sometimes the only way to insure that compensation is rational and just.

You have a right to not work, if you get a bunch of other dudes who work with you to stop working and protest, both of which are covered, you have a right to strike. Your boss can of course fire you, but that' generates bad publicity, especially if you're a public servant, and if you do skilled enough labor it's usually less trouble just to negotiate. Anyone has a right to pay what they want for labor, you just also have a right to look elsewhere, and as long as you make your labor valuable enough, you can usually find a good wage, or at least a livable one.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa Since when is censorship of protests a "leftist" phenomenon? When it comes to "the left" in general, the government tries to wipe its ass with them. So again, I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about. Grandpa h.

I would call it authoritarian, not left or rightist. Leftists are certainly capable of censorship and any other abuse rightists are, though.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor It isn't a right.

You are quite wrong, see here: http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/overvie...tions_act.aspx

Quote by: Chancellor And yet the big government nanny state your leftist buddies have helped create does exactly that. Ever notice the police at protest rallies? Ever notice that the government (utterly contrary to the Constitution for which you have so much contempt) has come up with such infringements on free speech as requiring a permit to protest, creating "free speech zones," and the like? Excuse me? Why the hell should I have to get permission from the government to protest the government?

Most of the restrictions that exist on your right to protest exist because "law and order" conservative types really hate disruption and insist on those restrictions. They don't come from the pens of liberal law makers. It is when "lefties" shut down Seattle or "hippies" pour into the streets of Chicago and get the crap beat out of them by police officers that nit-wits start restricting protests. Don't get me wrong, some restrictions are fine. If you are going to march through downtown, you should need a permit. You should be willing to work with local business and officials to make sure everyone is prepared. But, the government should have a substantial burden in being able to deny the permit.

Quote by: Chancellor No, the reason they can pay you whatever they damn well please is because they're the employer and you're asking them for the job. Now, if you weren't quite so stupid, you'd negotiate with the rate of pay with the employer, keeping in mind, of course, that when there's a large number of people competing for the same job the employer is going to get pretty much what he wants. It's only when there's a considerable shortage of labor that the employees are more likely to get a higher wage.

The NLRA addresses why this is crap. Read it.

Quote by: Chancellor No, you're the one not making sense now.

Right, because a doctor who can't dunk a basketball should be paid less. If the skill is not required, it should have no bearing on your wage. Again, that is not to say that a fast food employee should make the same as the doctor. The point is, without the right to strike, nothing stops employers from depressing wages to dangerous levels. That is the problem with our shrinking middle class now. The stellar "productivity" increases over the last decades have not been created by technological advances, they have been created by wage depression. The fact that the only thing we really manufacture in the US today is debt is the direct result of wage depression. It has happened since "union" became a dirty word in this country. The ridiculous wage differential that exists here and precious other few places proves that the "extra" money generated by these practices are not necessary for "global competition", they are necessary so that greedy dink heads can enrich themselves at the expense of the health of the larger economy.

Quote by: Chancellor The only "fair" wage is the one you agree to take. Life is unfair, get over it!

And life can be just as unfair for the employers as for the employees. Why does the employer deserve protection from the cruel world but not the employee?

Quote by: Chancellor Oh really? Talk to those damned union rats in the auto plants. Working on an assembly line is unskilled labor and look at what the unions have extorted in wages out of the automobile manufacturers.

You should really take a look at the wages CEOs and Board members have extorted from the workers and get back to me.

Quote by: Chancellor No, it's extortion and should be treated as such.

No it's called freedom of association or actual liberty of contract and is a protected right.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I would call it authoritarian, not left or rightist. Leftists are certainly capable of censorship and any other abuse rightists are, though.

That was essentially my point.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gela What about when your boss is the one depreciating you, and it shows through your low pay? Then do you have a right to stand up and prove your value?

You prove your value by working smarter and being more competent than anyone else (though your co-workers might get pissed off at you for making them look bad).

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor You prove your value by working smarter and being more competent than anyone else (though your co-workers might get pissed off at you for making them look bad).

So burdens should fall entirely on workers, is that it? Employers should dictate every little detail of most of our working lives? You gotta be kidding me.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

It does no good to stand up and be competent when the only person who will see is the same bigoted boss. Unless you're on some workplace reality show, you might as well only work as hard as you're getting paid.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Domino It does no good to stand up and be competent when the only person who will see is the same bigoted boss. Unless you're on some workplace reality show, you might as well only work as hard as you're getting paid.

Chancellor also assumes that being a brown-noser means "competency." I hardly think so. Not only that, but competency is not even the main issue here. The issue is whether people have aright to stand up for their own interests. I think they do. Workers are indeed people with interests. If they don't want to work for whatever reason, that's their decision.

But the capitalist mentality is; always blame the workers and consumers, never the bosses, managers, banks, landlords and capitalism in general. That's the tradition, and it has the effect of turning people into blind ideologues and stupid machines.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

Of course: an implied tenet of Capitalism is that those in authority got there by being right. The boss always deserves the benefit of the doubt, because he's the only one who knows what he's doing. If something goes wrong, look first to the morons who clearly can't do any better than what they're doing, which, judging from pay, is clearly less than what the boss does.

Nevermind the bosses' inescapable culpability for having delegated authority to the wrong person.

[SoylentGreen]

They must not strike because they have duty that transcends normal careers, it is not forgivable for policemen, or medical staff to go on strike. At the same time without their right to strike their rights are worthless.

They have a duty to attend to there job, They also have a duty to see that the rewards and payments for that job is an adequate compensation.
Striking does not always have to result in a walk out it can also include other types of action such as refusing to do overtime or the paper work involved in the job and can include demonstrations by off shift workers.
The right is there for all , no exception.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: ibeeberz Should Public Transit Workers be Allowed to Strike ?

Yes, they should.
It would strenghten a process of unification between all the people, not to mention other aspects.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Chancellor also assumes that being a brown-noser means "competency." I hardly think so.

No, damn it, competency means competency - brown-nosers tend not to get much actual work done.

Not only that, but competency is not even the main issue here. The issue is whether people have aright to stand up for their own interests. I think they do. Workers are indeed people with interests. If they don't want to work for whatever reason, that's their decision.

The way to stand up for your interests in the workplace is to exercise your right to leave.

But the capitalist mentality is; always blame the workers and consumers, never the bosses, managers, banks, landlords and capitalism in general. That's the tradition, and it has the effect of turning people into blind ideologues and stupid machines.

Bosses, managers, banks, landlords, etc. have every right to do the things they do but you have the right not to work for those employers, use that bank, rent from that landlord, etc.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa So burdens should fall entirely on workers, is that it? Employers should dictate every little detail of most of our working lives? You gotta be kidding me.

You work for an employer at the pleasure of the employer when there are more workers than jobs and when there are more jobs than workers then you have more negotiating power.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor No, damn it, competency means competency - brown-nosers tend not to get much actual work done.

But they often get promoted. And, by the way, this thread isn't only about "getting work done," it's about the fundamental right to organize, which includes getting more for your work. It's also about fighting de facto slavery in the workplace.

Quote by: Chancellor The way to stand up for your interests in the workplace is to exercise your right to leave.

Do you get work done by leaving? Does it win anything for workers? No, so what you do is assert your interests, either as an individual or as a group.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor You work for an employer at the pleasure of the employer when there are more workers than jobs and when there are more jobs than workers then you have more negotiating power.

No, the employers exists at the displeasure of the workers, who carry out the work demanded of them. Now, workers can do a variety of things. They can engage in a mass program of
INCREASING their wages and benefits any way they can, or they can attempt to effectively take over an indusry to make it less exploitative. Capitalists fear both options, and for obvious reasons. This is why they outsource. They don't want people who assert their rights as human beings, so they turn to poverty-stricken countries with low human rights standards. Of course, when people assert their basic rights in these places, the corporations (which undoubtedly rob local resources) can always move somewhere else. Where this happens, the government can simply re-steal the capitalist property and rent it out to some other exploiter.

Grandpa h.