"I never cross a picket line" (regular, military, government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I live in same area as the OP and I crossed the picket line last night because the other non-striking store in my area was out of stock on some items I needed. I avoided the strike for awhile not because I support the workers but because I didn’t want to deal with any drama while entering or leaving the store. However, I must say that the experience was amazing, shelves were all stocked, and there weren’t many shoppers around, and I would definitely go back and shop there again.
But to me, I see the whole “NEVER CROSS A PICKET LINE! OMG!” as an intimidation tactic that kind of works.
More than twenty years ago, returning from visiting family in Béthune, northern France, I ran into a road block on the A26 autoroute approaching Calais.
When I spoke to the pickets, they said that they were ferry workers who’d called a strike as the Ministers of the EU in Brussels were proposing to end Duty Free sales among member states.
This would hit the ferries and ferry workers hard, as less people would travel with the Duty Free allowance ended.
I pleaded that I had no intention of taking a ferry back to U.K., but my wife was feeling unwell and I wanted to get to a pharmacy.
Even though my car had U.K. plates, the fact that I spoke to them in French probably helped.
They rolled a 200 litre barrel out of my way and let me take the exit to Coulogne, a small commune.
From there I picked up the A16 autoroute to Oostende, Belgium, and caught a ferry there after a couple of hours wait.
I sympathised with the strikers, but my wife wanted to get back for her mother’s birthday.
Really? Did you know that if you are a "salaried" employee, you can be made to work for 40 hours or 60 hours for the same weekly check?
Salaried employees need to reign in their employers, or they'll be working 24/7. Whether they're union, or not. (BTDT.)
For the record, I've had weeks, where I had 40 hours in, by Wednesday evening.
Still, unions are "needed" less than ever before. (Mostly, they protect their OWN self interests, unfortunately.) Thru strong-arm tactics, they strive to become ever more powerful. The union bosses are in their ivory towers, and their worker bee's get the scraps.
Probably their biggest use now, is maintaining health insurance for their workers. Due to the outrageous cost of this, I see unions as a benefit, so long as they don't create more bureaucracy in doing so.
Cost for an individual? $800+ per month.
Cost for a union worker? $320 per month.
Thru bargaining, the unions have negotiated a better deal than the typical individual. And, the union worker usually has a better coverage to boot.
Back to the OP's subject now.
Crossing a picket line isn't a good idea, UNLESS the health of the public is at stake. (For instance, a trash collection union not doing their job for weeks/months.) This can create a large attrition situation. That wouldn't look very good on any politicians resume.
One gripe I have with some of the posts in this thread is that striking for money is not important. Like it or not, having a comfortable living wage affects health/safety/productivity/morale etc. It is not wrong to ask for your wage to at least keep up with total productivity, let alone keep up with inflation.
I will respect a picket line in most cases and will make an effort to not buy scab products. I respect the workers' bargaining rights and their efforts in most cases. I think we need more and stronger unions. In cases where the strike has gone on for years, I recognize that the effort failed and have ignored what must be professional pickets at that point, there just for show. My mom was a trade union activist in the 1930s and my grandfather was a strong union man in the early 1900s, so it is in the family to some extent. The history of organized labor is long and bloody, and the workers most often were the ones left lying on the ground.
Those who posture unions as a thing of the past need to understand the principle driving force of labor organizing as the unmitigated greed of corporate power. If greed is a thing of the past then it figures that unions must be likewise outdated also, but most know that corporate greed is certainly alive and well. Picket lines establish a visual connection to the fact that workers can't simply make gains by utilizing their own paltry power, no, they need the aid of other working class people to bolster their demands.
Labor strikes are a contest of who will starve first and who can remain impoverished longer, it's just that simple, so crossing that line aids the corporate side and hurts the labor side. It was a long standing norm for the working class to boycott the companies who were refusing to bargain with labor, whether it was a strike of an existing labor group or the efforts to organize a particular company, being uncooperative with labor could harm a companies bottom line. Of course workers back in the fifties were a much more solid front when compared to the modern day worker who belongs to nothing more than his or her Amazon or Costco "club."
America has a long and bloody labor history that is seldom if ever taught as a separate aspect of US history, but is is definitely the history of a class of people who have been exploited since America was first declared a "free nation." The working class has morphed with the help of US industry. High tech workers now labor on the multitude of coding, and engineering plantations, putting in more hours of work today than the unions of the forties called for back in their day. Quality of life is now defined as one's buying power and little else, so the picket lines of today have no relevance for the younger worker, and that's a huge win for corporate power.
I won't say that I'll never cross the picket line, but in my experience the only times workers are willing to strike are when conditions are so bad that it's the only recourse. I am generally supportive of labor as I recognize that the increase in prices has more to do with appeasing upper management than paying out more than starvation wages.
The destruction of the unions in the private sector over the last few decades has not only blocked but reversed progress employees have enjoyed in the past. When compensation lags behind productivity and only those at the top greatly benefit, something needs to be done or the great majority suffer, and that's where organized labor can step in for a correction where it exists. It's not just buying power, it's things like vacations, paid leave, retirement, workman's comp, health insurance, working conditions, and work balance too.
Where I live the workers at a large grocery chain are on strike, and I'm hearing the usual calls to support the workers and not shop there, not cross the picket line.
If you have done your research and looked at both sides of the strike (workers and management) and come to the conclusion that the workers position is right and reasonable and you want to support them, that's one thing.
But I don't understand the sentiment I frequently hear that you should never cross a picket line, no matter what. Am I just supposed to always assume that the striking workers are right and the management is being unreasonable?
Can someone explain this sentiment?
Moderator's note: We will presume that the premise for this debate is that it is wrong to cross a picket line. Participants in the debate can argue either "for" or "against" this statement.
As with all topics in Great Debates, participants are expected to state not only whether they agree or disagree, but also their reasoning for the side they have taken. Please do not post one-liners or a mere "yes" or "no" response, as this is a debate forum.
Thank you.
I live in the same area. I didn’t cross the picket lines during the strike.
My feeling is that striking is a last resort and if workers feel it necessary then clearly their concerns were not being heard by the powers-that-be. As such, I have/had no desire to contribute to the corporate bottom line.
Kroger/King Soopers did everything in their power, running ads, etc., to make themselves look better and all I got from that was the feeling that they (corporate) were protesting a bit too much.
Last time I was in what used to be my local King Soopers, pre-strike, it was clear that they weren’t making much/any effort to alleviate the staffing issues that are not apparent in neighboring Safeway’s or Sprouts or anywhere else that I can shop locally.
People have lots of choices here and people were clearly not choosing to work at King Soopers.
That in and of itself spoke volumes.
I think it depends on whether or not I support what's being picketed.
People working at a grocery store, I don't see that really as a long-term career unless you're a butcher, or the general manager, or accountant or something of the sort. But the normal workers... I can never agree with the concept that EVERY JOB is deserving of a "living wage." I don't even know what that means... but people who bag groceries, that's usually meant for teenagers in school, or people who just want a part time job.
I hear people say that we aren't all born equal. I disagree... I think we are born equal. I understand that some people are born into wealth while others are born into poverty. Having traveled the world and seeing how people actually live in many other countries (living in huts made of stacked mud, usually don't have clothes on because they don't own any)... I realize that EVERYONE born in the United States is lucky. So I have very little sympathy for anyone in the United States who says they're a victim of economics.
Someone in the Sudan cannot simply go down the street, get cleaned up and get job training from a local non-profit like you can in ANY city in the United States. I guess technically they can, with organizations like World Vision, etc... but those are all paid for by people in the United States.
SO... picket line at the grocery store? Please... get out of my way, I need to buy groceries. Don't like your job, get another one. There's plenty of jobs out there.
When I worked for the NFL, and the players were protesting... please... totally absurd. The teams were giving pay cuts to the staffers because we missed several games. I don't blame the fans, I don't blame the workers... I blamed the players union.
You know, if we're talking about something like powerline workers who are demanding better safety equipment or company paid-for life insurance or something like that... ok, I can get behind it. But the overwhelming vast majority of the union protests right now are absurd and ridiculous, and I can't be bothered with it. I'll cross those picket lines faster than you can call me a name.
I also don't ascribe to the argument that unions are important because 100 years ago they helped pass laws that prevented companies from offering script pay, indentured servitude, and using child labor. That was 100 years ago. Want to see what unions did 50 years ago? Just look at Detroit.
Want to see what unions did 10 years ago? Look at the GM and Chrysler "bankruptcy." I put that in quotes because neither of those companies actually HAD to go into bankruptcy. It wasn't the company that was in bankruptcy, it was the UAW.
Did you know that the taxpayer was never reimbursed for that 52 billion that we paid? First they said we weren't going to "buy" a car company... and then overnight (without announcement), the "Auto Task Force" purchased majority holdings in both companies. Then they said we don't want to "run" a car company. And the very next week, in the middle of the night on Friday, all the "preferred" stock was converted to "common stock" which was then used to vote out the board of directors. In place, (like at GM for example) a whole new board of directors was hired which consisted of political donors, a guy who manages a school district, and union representatives. None of them had prior car experience.
In the end, they ignored all the criticisms... and just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the US Government GAVE 17.5% of General Motors and 67% of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers union. Literally... the Federal government just GAVE billions and billions in assets to the UAW... for what reason? What claim did the UAW have? Nothing. But it was given as a bail-out to the unions, which was what that "forced" bankruptcy actually was all about.
The UAW then sold Chrysler to Fiat... so Chrysler is now an Italian company, and the UAW absorbed 10s of billions in free cash that came from the taxpayer that they had no business to.
So yeah, my opinion of unions... respectfully... hard disagree here. Cross that picket line.
Except salaried jobs don’t always pay $100k. I think the minimum is $35k or something, which is just over minimum wage in some larger cities.
As for the OP, I choose to avoid it. That said, there are times in my area where a whole industry is striking. For 2-3 months every couple of years, auto workers strike. If I need my car fixed, chances are that I cannot wait.
Yup. My friend works for a top accounting firm and only makes between like $50 to 55k. She's been there since last summer they require her to work like 60 to 70 hours a week. She's always tired and miserable. It definitely wouldn't be worth it to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
