As I sat watching television tonight, someone snuck up to my house and quietly slipped something in my mailbox. Since I have a dog, I knew they were there instantly. Woof!
I found a folded up piece of red paper with this written on it:
Important Notice
Dear Resident
Please be advised that you have a SCAB living in your neighborhood!! His name is _________. A scab is a person who has no morals, who takes advantage of people who are locked out by their employer or on strike. A SCAB is a person who crosses picket lines to do other people’s work while they are fighting to keep the wages and benefits that they have negotiated.
A SCAB is a person who is greedy, selfish and despicable. Who is “SCUM OF THE EARTH”
Beware
He may take your job next!!
At first I chuckled a bit but then, as I thought about it, I started to get a little annoyed. Has this person done anything wrong? In these times of “economic turmoil” can anyone really be blamed for accepting an opportunity?
I’m not saying I condone a person crossing a picket line. I probably wouldn’t do it. What is bothering me is that someone has taken the time to single out this person in his own community, depicting him as some kind of monster to his neighbors. Couldn’t this sneaky courier have found better ways of fighting his battle? More important enemies to target?
Seems to me that a strike occurs, generally, when workers become unsatisfied with what is being offered from their employers. Doing battle with the evils in corporate should take a great deal of energy, if it’s truly a cause worth fighting for. Why is this person, or persons, taking the time to walk neighborhoods, stuffing slanderous junk mail into peoples mailboxes?
If you are striking, are you not part of a union? Should it not be the job of the union to ensure that while striking, your job is protected and under no threat of being lost to one of these “scums of the earth“? If it is really a worry that you will lose your job while striking, I truly hope your union dues are received rather than paid out, as your union leaders are doing you a great disservice.
Doesn’t this person realize that this action can only benefit his adversary? Corporate Big Wig is sitting in his leather chair, finds out that the strikers are going after the “scabs”. He thinks, “Great! They’re getting nervous! The union is going to crack! Time to up the anti.” When striking, keep your eye on the prize. It lies just beyond your enemy.
Sorry to keep beating a dead horse here, but I just can’t believe someone would perform such a personal attack on some ordinary Joe who just wants to work! I highly doubt that this guy is going around looking for striking businesses so he can find work. That’s not in his best interest either! When looking for employment, what are the things that people look for. Job stability, decent wage and benefits. Why would someone aggressively seek work with a company that is striking for not having any of these things? It seems a little ridiculous to me.
My point? Who is really to blame here?
The company is to blame for:
- Putting profit over the happiness of and respect of his workers.
- Hiring replacement staff during a strike
The union is to blame for not:
- Creating a contract whereby new workers are not to be allowed to work in the instance of a strike.
- Instructing the union members on proper protocol during a strike situation.
- Charging union fees and not fulfilling their duties.
Don’t blame the scabs. They are just working stiffs like the rest of us. Blame the real enemies.
During the industrial revolution unions had a place. Today, ehhh I am not so sure. Not in their current “format”.
What have they done for the “big 3″? How did a union help my friend when the company warned the union that if they didn’t make some concessions that the company could not remain open as they were not profitable? Well the union said “their bluffing”. The company shut down the plant and moved production to a more profitable plant.
I don’t see what the CAW is doing for anyone.
M
By: Mike on October 7, 2009
at 11:02 pm
Sorry Mike, unions are more important now than they’ve ever been. Problem is we’re contending with a corporate media that’s trying to pretend that well paid workers are ruining our country. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Do you think a Walmart shelve stocker is ever going to buy a new car? Well paid workers are good consumers.
There were no global corporations during the industrial revolution, employers have far more power than they did. Unions are an absolute necessity in today’s world.
Read your own statement. The company picked up and moved- how is this depictive of a company unable to turn a profit. All you’ve shown by your example is that they were able to rip off some more desperate workers somewhere else. Harly something worth blaming on your friend. If you had any sense you’d see that the workers in this new location need to unionize as well. I see my own managers pad their bonuses and redecorate their offices while claiming the coffers are empty.
Please read what Jules has said. If we were all unionized workers would get paid more and the world would keep on turning. Workers worldwide get punished because people like yourself keep pushing wages down from this delusional belief that we deserve less. Stop watchin corporate media.
Get your head out of your ass. Unless youre a wealthy employer, you’ve really got no clue.
By: remistevens on October 9, 2009
at 10:37 am
I think it’s disgusting to single this man out in his community. I wish i saw the person putting this in the mailbox so i could kinldly give it back to him and tell him to grow the fuck up.
By: Natalie on October 8, 2009
at 9:20 am
I’m glad Mike said that unions had a place during the industrial revolution. Many people these days won’t even accept that.
When the ‘crisis’ hit last year, it didn’t take long for people to scapegoat the unions. Despite widespread consensus that this was a crisis caused by the unholy marriage of finance capital and international corporations, it’s easy to look at a guy on an industrial line making 30 bucks an hour and say it’s his fault.
Historically, unions had to take on the characteristics of their corporate counterparts in order to be effective. In other words, they had to get BIG. Some say they got too big, and that a bureaucracy (also copied from corporate) replaced bottom-up union participation.
No easy answers to be sure. But when people start arguing that the answer is less unions, ‘in order to compete in a globalized world’ (the mantra of modern capitalism), how about we offer MORE unionization as an alternative.
It’s not a zero-sum game: you can decently pay your workers and still compete. Maybe you’ll have to sell your second yacht, or forget about having the Jonas Brothers play at your daughters 5th birthday.
By: Jules Cosby on October 8, 2009
at 9:45 am
The unions aren’t as strong as they used to be but without them we could all be part time employees working more than one job and have no benefits. Bits and pieces are taken away but I hate to think how much we would loose with out them. It’s too bad that most companies can just appreciate the workers and give them decent wages and benefits without having to strike. Sometimes, there is no alternative unless you are willing to give away everything that has been fought for for years. The guy how put the letter in your mailbox is a scab himself. That is very rude and the union should not be allowing that to happen. Picketers are the ones who are supposed to try and keep out the scabs when they try to cross the line.
By: Cheryl on October 8, 2009
at 8:47 pm
The person who left the note is a total loser, that said, there is some pretty bad information here.
Your criticism of the union here makes little sense.
1)A union agreement that doesn’t keep out contract workers would be pretty pointless. Why would any union negotiate such a thing? . . . .Isn’t the company likewise responsible for anything both sides have agreed to anyways, why is this the union’s?
2)Surely this was done. People are people, there will always be bad eggs. You can’t have full control of people’s actions.
3)Not even sure what you mean here? They must be handling the negotiations, so what duty are you referring to? Would you like them to stand guard and physically block people from entry- that is what you’re suggesting by saying that they have neglected to keep out scabs. Or do you mean they should bend to the will of the employer as that is the only way to end a strike?
You’ve painted a noble cause with the actions of a lone idiot. Most union members would agree that this note writer’s action was deplorable. If you want to make the cause against unions, which seems to be your motivation, tackle actual issues instead of focusing on a great misrepresentation.
By: remistevens on October 9, 2009
at 10:23 am
In rebuttal:
1. I stated the union did NOT negotiate workers crossing the picket line. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have occurred.
2. Obviously bad eggs are a possibility, and maybe this person has been punished for his actions but I doubt it.
3. Is the union not supposed to be the “voice of the people”? When the people’s voice is reaching my front door, I hold the union accountable. Perhaps I will bring this matter to to the attention of the union and find out what they plan to do about it. Maybe I’ll bring it to the attention of the company as well. Do you think any of it will do any good? Probably not, I don’t have any money to offer either side.
By: ponch58 on October 9, 2009
at 6:16 pm
1) What? OK i have no idea what you mean here. Contracts are made through negotiation, no ‘side’ constructs it. Again what kind of useless union would ever agree to a contract that lets their workers be replaced with scabs?
2)more assumptions. “you doubt it”. again claiming the union condons this type of action. I know none of the unions i’ve ever been in would support this.
3)more about how this one guy’s words are the words of the union at large and an assumption that they won’t care to hear from you.
assume assume assume, negate negate negate
By: remistevens on October 15, 2009
at 6:35 am
Oh Remi, Remi, Remi…so sensitive about the plight of the union.
You have, as usual, missed my point to prove your own. My point was not to blame the union, solely. My point was to NOT blame the poor sap who is just trying to make a living. If you’d read my post with both your eyes open, it was pretty hard to miss.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain my stance on unions.
I am not necessarily anti-union. I am definitely anti-corporate. The union was set in place to protect workers, this I am highly in favour of. My problems lie in the union being a flawed system. In many unions, the whole idea of “hard work to get ahead” does not exist. There is no competitive spirit. Workers in a union are so protected that they can almost do no wrong.
Say we have two people working at the same union job. One person started on Dec. 3, the other on Dec. 4. The former has seniority. That is it, nothing else matters. He sits around “screwing the pooch” as it were, day to day, doing the bare minimum to get through his day. He lives by himself, doesn’t even have a dog to feed. The latter, shows up to work everyday, even skips his “sick” days, striving to do the best job he can in an effort to prove himself. He has a wife who doesn’t work and stays home to watch his 5 yr old daughter and twin 2 yr old boys.
A job opening comes up with a raise in pay and more medical benefits. Surely the guy who has worked harder and tried to prove himself should get the job, right. Not in this union. 1 more day of “experience” means mandatory promotion. Now he can finally buy that 5.0 litre Mustang he’s wanted.
I know what you are thinking. The company should not be able to pit workers against each other in battle right? You are right. The company shouldn’t have any control like that because they can’t be trusted to mediate with the workers interests in mind. The union, however, needs to come up with a better system that rewards good work ethics and punishes bad ones. Slackers should not receive the same benefits as hard workers!
A union is a company like any other. It will strive to benefit itself at the expense of others. It will have false pretenses and unfair loopholes. It will reward laziness and punish hard work.
I am very much in favour of a union, if it works properly.
By: ponch58 on October 9, 2009
at 6:06 pm
The union should never have the power to choose which workers benefit based on something as vague as “work ethic”, you want to see a cracked system in action? The union isn’t the company, they cant possibly have the right to choose who lives and who dies.
By: remistevens on October 15, 2009
at 6:13 am
Agree completely that the union is a flawed system, but its also the best we’ve got and its way better than the corporate heirchy. I believe in going easy on your friends to help slay your enemy.
By: remistevens on October 15, 2009
at 6:14 am
You continue to talk about this one guy as though it was the scripted position of the union. All assumptions, the tone here is anti-union, i can read perfectly well:
“In many unions, the whole idea of “hard work to get ahead” does not exist” – maybe not always popular, but ALWAYS present.
“If it is really a worry that you will lose your job while striking, I truly hope your union dues are received rather than paid out, as your union leaders are doing you a great disservice.” – companies fire people not unions, if you’re locked out youre locked out.
“A scab is the scum of the earth” – Scabs are bad, the idea of scabs is bad. Use of scabs is the scum of the earth, yes. The individual himself? Well of course not, only you and the jackass who left you the note seem to think this is a common union member’s stance.
I see nothing in this article criticizing the company whatsoever, and nothing about the dispute whatsover. However there are negatives about the union and this particular union member. Pardon me for somehow misreading that an article that has criticisms of one side and not the other is somehow actually in support of the criticized side.
By: remistevens on October 15, 2009
at 6:28 am
“The company is to blame for:
1. Putting profit over the happiness of and respect of his workers.
2. Hiring replacement staff during a strike”
Sounds like I’m criticizing the company here, doesn’t it?
Yes, did go on a bit of an anti-union tirade in response to your first comment. Unfortunately, this has shifted the point of my article. The jackass that put the paper in my mailbox is a Jackass, yes.
My sympathy lies with the poor guy who’s integrity has been publicly called out in his own neighbourhood. This is wrong. I can’t possibly truly argue on behalf of the company or the union, because I don’t even know who they are! Furthermore I don’t care.
By: ponch58 on October 15, 2009
at 7:47 pm
I also pity the poor respectful union member who has been misrepresented by a jackass co-worker.
By: remistevens on October 26, 2009
at 12:55 pm