Would you cross a picket line?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I dont think I understand the question...

That would be because you are from Mississippi.

So you're still not going to explain it to me?  I deeply apologize for being born in an area that doesn't care about labor.

Since no one else is going to answer it for you, a picket line is an organized protest of unionized workers, who generally stand around holding signs saying something along the lines of "On Strike," with any related information and slogans.

The idea is that for every day they don't work while on strike, they show up at the business/plant to protest.  For retail establishments, its a good way to put pressure on management by cutting into sales -- most union supporters would not cross a picket line out of sympathy/solidarity for the workers.

Personally, I wouldn't cross a picket line unless I had little alternative, but it really does depend on the situation.  I'd have no problem crossing a picket line I thought to be unwarranted.

[NDN]

I see no reason why not. Workers aren't always right. With that said, I could easily choose to boycott unfair businesses.

[KEmperor]

Of course.

[WalterMitty]

Of course.

[merseysider]

If I believed a strike was wrong I would cross the picket line. I would have mixed feelings though and it is not something I would do lightly.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Of Course.

My Gran did in 1999, when some workers across the road from her house were fired and their pay was slashed. She was even all on all the local news for most part that week. Same as me. I think even the Unions tryed to get her on board but she declined.

[Speed of Sound]

It would take a serious sense of urgency for what was beyond the line to get me to disrespect my fellow worker in such a way.

[angus]

Answer. No.

I might not agree with the reasons for doing so but I was essentially taught to respect a balloted strike and not to cross the line. If the cleaners and caretakers of my office went on strike and took the whole PCS union with them, it would be wrong to cross the line and switch on lights, open doors etc as it's usurping their job. Wildcat strikes (now thankfully unlikely) are a different matter.

I've crossed 'em in the past.  I remember a Weingarten's supermarket had some geedunk I wanted to buy when I was about nine years old and I crossed one then.  I have crossed them more recently in other countries, though I rarely see them in my own.  I would cross one again if they're standing between me and a product I want to buy.  I don't have a high opinion of unions, their strongarm tactics, and their antagonistic ways.  I suppose if I had more reverence of them, I might think twice about crossing the line.  Mostly I consider strikers to be a nuissance and I support, generally, any laws making it easier for companies to terminate striking workers.  I don't think I wish death upon my opponents, but I do wish to be able to come and go freely in a land unfettered by excess regulations.  If my janitors refuse to take out my trash, I sincerely hope my employers have the right to replace them with someone who will.  I think making our borders more open, ending all this silly talk about walls and fences, and abolishing the federally-mandated minimum wage will help in this regard.  But ultimately, the power belongs to the people, and so long as there are those who fear or love unions, we will have these discussions.  There are states in which you can be forced to pay union dues just to get a job.  And it's not just blue-collar workers.  I've interviewed for faculty positions in state schools which require all faculty to either join the union, or pay the union fee while waiving the membership.  Maybe the gods sent me on those interviews to be a freedom fighter, but alas I have no stomach for that fight.  But maybe it's time to take up that fight.  Maybe the gods sent me on those interviews to be a freedom fighter, and are disappointed that I never accept such conditions.  I'll have to think about that a little more next time, because if good and free men don't fight for what they believe in, then the union bosses win.  Evil always wins when good men haven't the courage to fight.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unions aren't always antagonistic. Although the antagonistic moments invariably get most of the coverage, most of the time union and management have a cooperative, symbiotic relationship. As a manager of a company or division, I would actually want to have a worker's representative organization that could provide some kind of view into what the mood and opinion of my workers really were.

On the other hand, the credible threat of strongarm tactics, no matter how rarely used, is completely inseperate from the existence of collective bargaining. In average circumstances, one cannot have collective bargaining without authoritarianism, just as one cannot have collective action without it. The very existence of law is a testament to that; after all, we would all be better living in a well-behaved society than a poorly behaved one.

[angus]

I think I understand your view.  But I also think I'd rather stand alone against nature and fight my own battles.  Each contract is a private matter between employee and employer.  Or there's always independent proprietorship if you don't like any of what's out there.  That's freedom.  And there is no security.  We don't require security.  Just freedom. 

I don't wish death upon you, just political failure.  May the victory be ours.

[Beet]

May the victory be ours.

Ehhh, whatever that means, I'm all for it

[opebo]

I see no reason why not. Workers aren't always right. With that said, I could easily choose to boycott unfair businesses.

They may not always be 'right' (though obviously that is merely a subjective value), but they certainly are always oppressed, by definition.

Obviously I would never cross a picket line, though I must admit that it is cowardice which enforces this conviction.  I generally support unions but I might consider crossing as my personal convenience is paramount.. however, since this might entail danger, the answer is an emphatic "NO".

[opebo]

I think I understand your view.  But I also think I'd rather stand alone against nature and fight my own battles.  Each contract is a private matter between employee and employer.  Or there's always independent proprietorship if you don't like any of what's out there.  That's freedom.  And there is no security.  We don't require security.  Just freedom. 

I don't wish death upon you, just political failure.  May the victory be ours.

Oh lord man, surely you can open your eyes and take a look at the society in which you live, can't you?  Try to set aside the ridiculous horatio alger myth you've been indoctrinated into all your life. 

1) you can't 'stand alone against nature' - in the first place you'ld have to 'own' that nature.  You can't just go prancing off all manly into some corporation's forests and start utilizing the resources.  THose resources, like everything else on earth are pre-apportioned by the State, and certainly not to you, worker.

2) you can't 'fight your own battles'.  You can't fight at all because if you don't do exactly as they tell you they will put you in jail.  That simple.  So get to work.  Ok if by 'fight your own battles' you mean in disciplining yourself to more adequately meet the demands of your owner, well then yes, you can do that.  They'll allow it.

3) there is no 'freedom', only roles in the social heirarchy imposed by force.

4) there is no dichotomy between 'freedom' and 'security' - there are merely privileged and oppressed.  the privileged are both more 'free' and very 'secure', the oppressed neither, obviously.

Ok.. sorry.  I just get irritated with seeing a smug ex-hippy recite that ridiculous american pablum.

[angus]

that's a little less succinct than your usual retort.  you missed the opening.  you're supposed to quote Port Arthur, Texas native Janis Joplin on this one.  Or at least give me the satisfaction of acknowledging that you recognize the implied reference to pop cultural icon Stewie Griffin.

by the bye, the priveleged are perhaps the least free among us, oddly enough.  imagine Daddy's reaction, for example, had W impregnated a black chick.  or a catholic.  but very secure they are.

[DanielX]

that's a little less succinct than your usual retort.  you missed the opening.  you're supposed to quote Port Arthur, Texas native Janis Joplin on this one.  Or at least give me the satisfaction of acknowledging that you recognize the implied reference to pop cultural icon Stewie Griffin.

by the bye, the priveleged are perhaps the least free among us, oddly enough.  imagine Daddy's reaction, for example, had W impregnated a black chick.  or a catholic.  but very secure they are.

Actually, angus, I don't think H.W. minds Catholics too much. After all, Jeb married one, and even converted over.

[angus]

yeah, that was probably unfair.  hyperbole.  like that old saturday night live skit in the early days of the Bush43 administration with the white house maid coming in with two laundry baskets and Laura asking, "what are you doing?" and the maid answering, "oh, ma'am, I'm separating the whites from the coloreds.  Just like your father-in-law used to like to do."  just unfair hyperbole at the expense of a US president. 

well, anyway, I don't mind crossing a picket line.  I bet Bubba wouldn't mind crossing one either if it meant getting at those McDonald's big mac and fries.  (again with the SNL skits?  man, that's getting old.)

[jokerman]

I've never encountered one either but wouldn't cross except in an emergency.

[Bacon King]

If I believed a strike was wrong I would cross the picket line. I would have mixed feelings though and it is not something I would do lightly.

^^^

[??????????]

Scabs are freedom fighters.

[opebo]

by the bye, the priveleged are perhaps the least free among us, oddly enough.  imagine Daddy's reaction, for example, had W impregnated a black chick.  or a catholic.  but very secure they are.

No, you're wrong, but you do usefully point out the false dichotomy separating 'freedom' and 'security', and of course W is one of best examples.  A man who did everything 'wrong', and many things which would lead to the imprisonment of a poor, has been rewarded most amply for his birth.

[7,052,770]

I've never encountered one either but wouldn't cross except in an emergency.

[J. J.]

It depends.

As a consumer, or a replacement worker, non emergency, and it is a legal strike, no, I would not cross.   If I'm management, yes, because that is my role.

If it is an illegal strike, I would cross.  If it is an "informational" picket line, or an "ideological" one, a non strike situation, yes.

[angus]

No, you're wrong

seriously, I think there is.  Freedom, for example, is defined by mirriam webster's as "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" or something like that.  pick your own if that doesn't suit your tastes.  security is "something given, deposited, or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation"  Free stuff means that it's gratis.  Here, have a cookie you don't have to buy anything.  Just take one.  No strings attached.  Security, on the other hand, is a parachute.  And a parachute has many strings.  Sure it'll save your life if you fall from way up high, so I'm knocking parachutes, by I'd imagine a free fall can be very exhilarating.

The two concepts, security and freedom, are philosophically antithetical.  One way is communism, in the extreme.  The other is laissez-faire, in the extreme.  Of course, we need not go to extremes, but on most issues there are two viewpoints.  (Not that our two confused and exploitative political parties are defining, and I don't mean to imply that one is always on one end, and the other opposed; no reason even to go there, since most informed posters recognize the inconsistencies in both of them.)  But we can take open borders versus fences & walls, or administered social security versus IRA accounts (more precisely, defined benefit accounts versus defined contribution accounts), socialized medicine versus complete freedom government involvement in health care, or even union membership versus a right to gainful employment without joining a union.  On one hand, you have the ant, who is always fed, always healthy until death, and knowing what to do and when to do it.  The ant is in fact one of the most successful groups of invertebrates ever to have evolved.  On the other hand, you have the Rottweiller, or maybe the tiger.  Many would rather live like ants, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But you have to recognize that many are also intrinsically rotweilers, or tigers.  I wouldn't try to keep one as a pet, would you?  They sh**t everywhere, gnaw through their chains, often die in captivity, bite people, scare the hell out of children, are likely to become extinct unless we do something to help perserve them, and generally don't make good pets.  But tigers and rottweilers aren't bad people.  They are who they are.  And I'm guessing your average tiger or rottweiler wouldn't have any ethical qualms about crossing any picket line if there's a ribeye waiting on the other side.

[opebo]

The two concepts, security and freedom, are philosophically antithetical.  One way is communism, in the extreme.  The other is laissez-faire, in the extreme.

Certainly the two concepts are philosophically antithetical, but you are making a huge leap to say that they approximate political systems, angus.  'Communism' and laissez-faire are in fact not very different at all in practice - each is the application of force to some people on behalf of others.  You simply don't understand 'laissez-faire' capitalist society.  It consists of the application of force by the state upon the majority (the workers) on behalf of the owners.  The State literally forces the populace to toil for the benefit of this small group, through mechanisms such as 'property', prison, etc.  True, they may stoically starve rather than toil, but this is not a freedom in any meaningful sense when all the power, priviledge, and 'wealth' is already apportioned politically from long before the worker's birth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is truly comical that you find a worker under capitalism any less ant-like than one under other systems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You consider the priviledged to be 'tigers'?  Man, they just inherit the position and power.  There's nothing particularly frightful or personally strong about them (though certainly a life of being catered to will cause one to be rather outgoing and confident). 

[angus]

yes, I think that probably status, in any system, is decided upon largely by the circumstances of one's birth.  I don't think we're arguing about that.  In fact, we're arguing mostly for sport.

back to topic:  the subtext here is threefold.  One, do you have any qualms with crossing a picket line.  I have answered, have you?  ah, I scroll down and note that you have, and are brave enough to admit the reason.  Two, does the person who won't have any moral leverage over those who will?  Your own courageous response answers that question.  Three, the obligatory foray into unions in general.  and on this third, and most intersting, facet of the question lies our debate:  have they outlived their usefulness?  I think that in such an informed, instantly gratified, and mobile society such as that in which modern humans in developed countries exist, they have.  I have been sufficiently trained in looking up stuff that I don't need some knuckle-dragging, cigar-smoking, fat ganster/laywer telling me that he'll "take care of me."  I'm quite capable of doing the the search to find out what benefits are generally afforded people of my qualifications.  I'm capable of negotiating, one-on-one and usually by telephone, with prospective employers.  I'm aware of the differences between various retirement and health plans.  Really, we're a fairly educated and mobile public.  We simply don't need unions.  At the very least, we ought to be free to decline membership.  Its requirement as a precondition of employment, at least in many locales, is discriminatory and evidence that many state legislatures are still in the employment of organized mobs.