- Capitalism and Alternatives -


Posted by: Gee ( so ) on April 29, 1999 at 17:49:28:

In Reply to: and therefore... posted by bill on April 29, 1999 at 15:38:32:

: Quite so, and this would be an effective tactic by a business to destroy a union. Therefore it would make sense for a union to insist upon a contract that does not permit scabs to replace the strikers, right?

No, this denies the right of potential employees to freely associate with an employer. A union that demands things for its 1000 workers when 5000 other people would willingly take the jobs without the union demands is in a weak position and is the enemy, not of the company, but of the 5000.

Why are people who want to work, when others at the same place are striking, called 'scabs' anyway?

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup