America would be better off with more strikes!

[RussellK]

I'll answer that. Those fair wages you are walking across a picket line to get are most likely fair wages because of the sacrifice of previous union workers. Your willingness to cross a picket line and take that job diminishes the power of the strike, and maybe will deprive the union worker of his job. A striking worker doesn't have the right to commit violence against you but since you are presumably taking his job while he's on picket trying to get better wages or working conditions I can understand the desire tell you you're a jackoff as you make your way to the employee parking lot to take his spot.

[whc03grady]

I thank you for your candid answer, though (as I'm sure you can imagine) I disagree with it:

"His" job? Do we own our jobs, now? It seems to me it's more of a case where I'm willing to do something (or, do something at some rate, if you like) that the striking worker is not.

It's not clear to me that anyone is obligated to honor a picket line on the presumption that crossing one "diminishes" the power of the strike. There may be some weak sense of obligation here (I kind of doubt it), but surely I'm not obligated to deprive myself of gainful employment simply because you and your union have taken issue with the working conditions. Maybe you and your union can try to convince me that Evil Company Inc treats its employees unfairly, but what happens when I hear your argument and am not convinced? Then I get yelled at? Where is the room for disagreement?

[whc03grady]

Those fair wages you are walking across a picket line to get are most likely fair wages because of the sacrifice of previous union workers.

And also, this language sounds disturbingly like the talk that people often use to quiet dissent about other things: "How dare you oppose the war in ____________? People died to give you the right to protest", the implication being that you'd best keep your yap shut, conform, and do as your told.

[RussellK]

Of course you disagree. But its pretty common place for most of us to feel ownership towards our jobs, hence I'm heading off to "my" job; that bastard got "my" job; I hate "my" job; I love "my" job and in a sense in a union shop with seniority you do own that job.... until that strikebreaker crosses and takes it.
And you're not obligated to honor a picket line if you don't have any feeling of honor but don't play the victim card because a striking worker yells at you. Your presence does diminish the power of their strike. I understand, although may not like it when they do, why people cross lines. They have strong reasons, feeding a family is a pretty good motivator. The striking worker has equally strong reasons. It isn't hard to understand why there is violence and yelling and intimidation.

[RussellK]

Those fair wages you are walking across a picket line to get are most likely fair wages because of the sacrifice of previous union workers.

And also, this language sounds disturbingly like the talk that people often use to quiet dissent about other things: "How dare you oppose the war in ____________? People died to give you the right to protest", the implication being that you'd best keep your yap shut, conform, and do as your told.

Not at all. Just pointing out why a striking worker might take issue with your crossing his picket line. Its pretty simple really, not being happy with your gaining the benefit of his sacrifice.

I recall during a teamsters strike a couple of union drivers going to work for a non union company while out on strike. They got roughed up and lost their membership. They used the same "feeding my family" argument. I got why they did it but it violated that shared sacrifice and brotherhood so they were punished. I don't think the unions ever functioned using panache.

Just to clarify I'm not a hard core union guy. I was a Teamster 30 years ago or so. I see their purpose and I see their negatives. I was screwed out of a pension by the Teamsters because they didn't represent me well but at the same time I made wages that paid better than the same job pays today. I've been on the other side, management, for quite a while longer. I do remember in the years that I was a Teamster it was always the big mouths with nothing to lose that called the loudest for a strike. Drove me crazy.

[Amskeptic]

Those fair wages you are walking across a picket line to get are most likely fair wages because of the sacrifice of previous union workers.

And also, this language sounds disturbingly like the talk that people often use to quiet dissent about other things.

This forum and RussellK in particular, does not a history of quieting dissent?!?
I think "this language" is being interpreted through your personal filters. Own it as such, and ask for clarification when necessary.

People died to give you the right to protest", the implication being that you'd best keep your yap shut, conform, and do as your told.

I absolutely do not read it the way you wrote it. I read it as "honor the efforts of others".
People *have died* for all number of just causes. It is just a fact. And the rise of unions came at great cost to people in the service of other people's profits.

Go to a library and read Big Trouble by J. Anthony Lukas. A good read on the desperate need for labor unions at the turn of the century. I think we forget how ruthless power can be and the power of the ruling class during early American capitalism was fierce and utterly unprincipled .

J. Anthoiny Lukas won two Pulitzer Prizes: the first for reporting at The New York Times, where he served for a decade as a foreign and domestic correspondent; the second for Common Ground, which also brought him the National Book Award, the National Book Critics Circle Award, and Robert F. Kennedy Book Award.

[Westy78]

I thank you for your candid answer, though (as I'm sure you can imagine) I disagree with it:

"His" job? Do we own our jobs, now? It seems to me it's more of a case where I'm willing to do something (or, do something at some rate, if you like) that the striking worker is not.

It's not clear to me that anyone is obligated to honor a picket line on the presumption that crossing one "diminishes" the power of the strike. There may be some weak sense of obligation here (I kind of doubt it), but surely I'm not obligated to deprive myself of gainful employment simply because you and your union have taken issue with the working conditions. Maybe you and your union can try to convince me that Evil Company Inc treats its employees unfairly, but what happens when I hear your argument and am not convinced? Then I get yelled at? Where is the room for disagreement?

Russel summed it up pretty well. Here's how I see your situation. You have the need to feed your family in tough economic times. Fully understandable. So do those striking workers. Those workers may be striking for something that could make or break their way of life that they have fought and struggled to keep for countless years. They have struck to keep that language, wage, working conditions etc. Then you come along and diminish their negotiating power by crossing the line and you just expect them to step aside and tip their hat politely as you walk into their position that they are trying to keep, and risking just that by striking. Unions do not take strikes lightly, it is done as a last choice option. If you choose to cross a picket line then you know what you are getting into and have no place to complain. Not saying you don't have the right. Just don't bitch when you get called some unsavory names.

You seem to have a very optimistic view on large corporations and the way they treat their employees. I have seen it different first hand. You see, I'm a shop steward and have taken part in negotiations as part of collective bargaining for the last twenty years of my employment with a large grocery distribution company. We just voted on our current contract this past weekend.

One of the things the company wanted to do was strike any language that gave us a defined work week. This includes fixed days off and windows of start time for first, second, and third shifts. Current language states that any worker that has bid into a permanent position shall have a set schedule which includes two consecutive days off. This means that said worker knows his schedule and can live a normal life without calling in on a daily basis to see if they are working. Not that much to ask in my opinion if you have a competent management team that can schedule with some common sense.

Next is the set times they can start particular shifts. Current language states that first shift can start from 4:00am-10:00am, second shift from 3:00pm-8:00pm, third shift from 10:00pm-2:00am. Those are some very wide windows to get work scheduled and completed in a reasonable time. Think for a second about starting your eight hour shift at 11:00am or noon then tack on a couple of hours over time and you finish up your day at 9:30pm. It's not a fun way to live your life because you don't have one with those kind of hours. Oh, and those two hours of OT. That is also language that they wanted to strike from the contract that states that an employee that is out of the bottom 20% of the crew can only be forced to work a maximum of two hours past the end of their shift. We gave them in the last contract five days that they can call unlimited OT for emergency situations in a calendar year. It is also null and void if there is a mechanical break down or act of god that forces work to cease for an extended period of time. They also have the week of and the week before or after a holiday that we do not work, as unlimited OT to complete work for the missed day. Again fairly reasonable on our part I think. They have never not had work completed with this language yet still wanted it gone. I can just about guarantee that if we lost that language that the work force would be cut and everyone would be working very long days and rarely have a weekend. It was a strike issue many years ago that the union won and won't be giving up any time soon. Yet the company comes after it every contract and seems to push the issue further every time.

Just a couple of examples of how unreasonable a company could be without an organized labor force.