Oh yeah, of course, how foolish of them. Everyone knows that you can just unionize ezpz. If you knew your labour history, you’d know that individual acts of disruption are a crucial element in negotiation. We didnt get unions just because one day all the workers realized they didn’t like getting paid poorly, liberals responded with violence and necessitated acts like these to make unionization a more preferable alternative to capital.
We have environmental protections that (purportedly) avoid harmful pollution near residential communities for similar reasons.
They responded with violence because there were no legal protections for labor unions. Those protections exist in California.
Burning a warehouse is the least effective way to help people. The arsonist ends up in jail, the surrounding community suffers health problems, and the warehouse owners put more security and restrictions on employees instead of paying them more. Unionizing forces the warehouse owner to meet the demands of the workers.
“Guys the system WORKS just USE it and don’t break its rules!!” You don’t sound like someone who has ever had to form a union, maybe even never grew up in a union town. Legal protections are designed to redirect challenge into a controlled environment that is designed in accordance with the interests of capitalism. Legal parameters for strikes has, go figure, resulted in a consistent and gradual erosion of union power that has only began to change post-COVID.
Unionists didn’t use violence because they didn’t have “legal protection,” they did it because capitalists and police would break their bodies either if they worked or resisted. They’d call in militias to bash unionist skulls, they’d pay them in scrip and prevent them or their children from ever freeing themselves.
I don’t buy your concern for these communities at all, have you tried to check if there was any harm? Have you heard how they’ve responded? Would any of them accept that cost if it meant that the visibility of these acts produced a larger movement of labour rights that their kids could benefit from? So fucking disrespectful.
Unionists didn’t use violence because they didn’t have “legal protection,” they did it because capitalists and police would break their bodies either if they worked or resisted. They’d call in militias to bash unionist skulls, they’d pay them in scrip and prevent them or their children from ever freeing themselves.
Those are all illegal now. That’s why unionizing works now where it didn’t before.
I don’t buy your concern for these communities at all, have you tried to check if there was any harm?
I live in California. Air quality is always an issue, whether it’s from wildfires or avgas from local airports. These cause real health issues, and the latter causes measurable IQ drops in the poor communities surrounding those airports. Industrial fires are something we need to worry about just like Tehranis have to worry about oil refinery fires.
Reality: the burning down warehouses redirects security from union busting to looking for arsonists. And the calculus is sometimes: pay more for security, or just pay workers more.
Not if they get penalized for it more than they benefit from breaking the law, and California is strict about enforcing labor laws.
Look man, in addition to being counterproductive, the actions you’re defending have a lot of collateral damage. It’s similar to Israel saying that they should be able to bomb Gaza to get terrorists even though the bombings also affect children, which is another example of an action that is both counterproductive and has a lot of collateral damage.
Oh yeah, of course, how foolish of them. Everyone knows that you can just unionize ezpz. If you knew your labour history, you’d know that individual acts of disruption are a crucial element in negotiation. We didnt get unions just because one day all the workers realized they didn’t like getting paid poorly, liberals responded with violence and necessitated acts like these to make unionization a more preferable alternative to capital.
We have environmental protections that (purportedly) avoid harmful pollution near residential communities for similar reasons.
They responded with violence because there were no legal protections for labor unions. Those protections exist in California.
Burning a warehouse is the least effective way to help people. The arsonist ends up in jail, the surrounding community suffers health problems, and the warehouse owners put more security and restrictions on employees instead of paying them more. Unionizing forces the warehouse owner to meet the demands of the workers.
“Guys the system WORKS just USE it and don’t break its rules!!” You don’t sound like someone who has ever had to form a union, maybe even never grew up in a union town. Legal protections are designed to redirect challenge into a controlled environment that is designed in accordance with the interests of capitalism. Legal parameters for strikes has, go figure, resulted in a consistent and gradual erosion of union power that has only began to change post-COVID.
Unionists didn’t use violence because they didn’t have “legal protection,” they did it because capitalists and police would break their bodies either if they worked or resisted. They’d call in militias to bash unionist skulls, they’d pay them in scrip and prevent them or their children from ever freeing themselves.
I don’t buy your concern for these communities at all, have you tried to check if there was any harm? Have you heard how they’ve responded? Would any of them accept that cost if it meant that the visibility of these acts produced a larger movement of labour rights that their kids could benefit from? So fucking disrespectful.
Those are all illegal now. That’s why unionizing works now where it didn’t before.
I live in California. Air quality is always an issue, whether it’s from wildfires or avgas from local airports. These cause real health issues, and the latter causes measurable IQ drops in the poor communities surrounding those airports. Industrial fires are something we need to worry about just like Tehranis have to worry about oil refinery fires.
Reality: the burning down warehouses redirects security from union busting to looking for arsonists. And the calculus is sometimes: pay more for security, or just pay workers more.
There is no money spent on security for union busting in California. California has strict laws against violent union busting.
Nobody would do something iLlEgAl
Not if they get penalized for it more than they benefit from breaking the law, and California is strict about enforcing labor laws.
Look man, in addition to being counterproductive, the actions you’re defending have a lot of collateral damage. It’s similar to Israel saying that they should be able to bomb Gaza to get terrorists even though the bombings also affect children, which is another example of an action that is both counterproductive and has a lot of collateral damage.