Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Is going on STRIKE a democratic Right??

<< < (2/2)

M Dogg™:

--- Quote from: Eidolon_Sun on August 19, 2003, 09:40:21 PM ---
 Okay but does it really make sense if demonstrators resort to all sort of anti-social activities just to make a point???
  Many Strikers resort to vandalism and go on rampage... destroyin public property and stores... it that justified..
 These days there's no such thing as peaceful demonstrations.. see the demonstrations that occur bfore each WTO meet in Geneva.. its violent and indecent...
 
 All in all I feel strikes must be controlled and strictly regulated by govts. with an iron fist...

--- End quote ---

Damn Nazi's. Well we are at it, we should reincarnate Hitler and have ultra-right wing governments. I see Hitler is popular on this board, might as well. I'm beginning to lose hope in future generations.

Trauma-san:
Yes, it is a democratic right, you have the right to do whatever you want.  However, there are consequences and responsibilities that come along with your actions.  For instance, if you go on strike from your job, you get your ass fired, and don't get any paycheck.  So sure, you have the right to strike, but you'll have to see if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.  

For instance, recently, people were protesting the war, by laying down in the middle of the streets in chicago.  Now, you have every right to lay down in the middle of the street, and disrupt traffic.  However, if you're halfway fucking intelligent, you realize that that's going to do one of three things.

1. Piss people off, who will then hate you AND your cause.

2. Get yourself thrown in jail for disrupting traffic, or

3. Get yourself run the fuck over.

Most democrats (it seems most people who strike are democrats, save the people who want 10 commandment statues in law buildings) don't realize that yes, you are free to do whatever you want, but that also brings repurcussions.

Another example.

The Dixie Chicks made a comment that George Bush was a dumbass or something.  Actually, just kidding, they said they were ashamed of him.  Now, people everywhere banned their music from radio stations, etc.  They bitched and complained that their right to freedom of speech was being violated.  The freedom of speech section of the bill of rights reads that congress shall make no law denying the right to express your opinion or voice.  Nobody has.  Individual citizens, however, decided that they didn't want to hear or buy Dixie Chick albums.  That's not oppressing them, that's just saying "Fuck You" in response to their comments.  After all, we're all free to say what we want, but there are always effects of whatever we do.  

Strike Away.  Don't bitch if you get fired, though.  

M Dogg™:
I know my dad was the head of his UAW (United Auto Workers) in Fontana Cali, and they striked because they worked long hours, and when G.E. took over his work place after the old owner died, they lost many benefits like dential, and medical, so they had a strike to regain their benefits that they lost. After the srike was sucessful, G.E. began treating the workers better, and it was all good, except I think they fired my dad, I'm not sure, I just know he got a new job later. But he knew what was going on, and he knew what could happen. On the way to work, to strike, a G.E. owned truck tried to push his little truck off the road. But he knew what could happen. He was no worst off afterwards, he just found a new job.

Now laying on the road is not a strike, that's a protest. And laying in the road, that's against the law. You have no rights, as you are breaking the law. A more constructive way is to get a permit, reserve a date, and have the street closed, and promote it to let people know what you are protesting and why. The new generation does not know how to protest. After all, we protested police brutality by burning down a city. Though I'll say that was just cause, we should go back and protest and present our cause, not lay in the roads.

Trauma-san:
Strikes and protests are similar, though.  I was just using an example like you mentioned of how people don't know how to protest anymore.  Also, striking workers can still be fired, there's just the chance that the company won't be able to find anymore employees since the union will blackball them.  It's actually a pretty smart move, whoever thought unions up, it's a way of getting negotiating power that rivals the companies.  

Eidolon_Ravi:

 All this pertains to strikes against a private company where  the protestors and the "offending" company are sheltered by the same laws of the government.

 But what hapens if the strikes are meant against the same governments who have previously made the same laws for protecting the interests of the strikers.. can they change those laws to suit their needs and benefits in this changed scenario??

 Thus when the interests of the government is @ stake shouldn't they take action against these workers in the larger interest of the nation??? or should they watch the whole proceedings like a dumb spectator and watch the economy suffer????

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page