Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SuperWatto, May 7, 2010.
What are you babbling on about now?
One post later.
Sounds sort of like you're saying opposite things. Care to clarify?
That is certainly true, but you can't take this argument to its extremes. If a garbageman breaks his leg while working (quite a thankless job, mind you) and happens to be unable to afford health insurance, then it's a basic moral imperative that society finds him some medical care. And that's that....a bare minimum of help. Is that socialism? Is that a welfare state?
Except, funny thing about lawyers is if you went to a T3/T4 school (or even some T2 schools), you've essentially set fire to $100,000 because you probably won't be getting into any big law firms with that kind of degree and you'll end up with a job that pays comparable to ones that don't require an expensive piece of paper (whereas if you were to apprentice in a trade like plumbing, you'd eventually make a nice wage but you wouldn't have decades of debt to pay off). If you go into a profession thinking you're going to make big bucks there's a very good chance you'll just land yourself further into debt if you don't possess the skills (and if your sole reason for entering the school is to make big bucks, there's a decent chance you won't possess the drive necessary to acquire the skills to justify the expense). The huge cash incentives offered to only the top percentage means the ever-expanding bottom is a scam (especially because the the number of law students is growing at a much higher rate than the number of law jobs especially as people are starting to turn to alternative means of arbitration, sort of like how some accounting work dried up with the introduction of automated software that does most of the heavy lifting for you). It is in society's best interest to reign in the JD factories (though admittedly not in the university's best interest to cut off that sweet, sweet cash flow).
The people who go to these schools are a lot like those who go to Hollywood hoping to be superstars. Sure a percentage of them make it each year but a majority of these moths just fly into the flame and get burned.
So yeah, I think other jobs should pay more.
I would if I had actually said the first post.
The ultimate right of any individual is to withold their labour, otherwise they might as well be slaves?
Therein was my initial question of if we were talking protected strikes or not, as the converse is that they can also be fired/locked out/etc.
ShaneP: Eh, apologies for the misread.
You can give up that right through contracts.
I've realized why this annoys me so. It's essentially unfair. The power in the hands of for instance garbage men or truckers who strike is much stronger than the power of flower salespeople or graphic designers who strike. These people have an economic wrench that others don't have. That's why the concept of striking is fundamentally flawed as soon as it hits third parties.
And also, the connection between the demand and the means is at least haphazard. What does wanting higher pay have to do with piling garbage in the street? If the garbage men want more money, why don't they pick up all the garbage and pile it onto their bosses' doorsteps? Why are they allowed to bother people who have nothing to do with it?
I think the stance is to show how important they are as to why they should get paid more. A graphic designer or flower salesperson that strikes would get demands met if other workers couldn't be found to do the same job for cheaper.
I've come around to understand that important work needs to be paid fairly well. But if it isn't, how is the community responsible? And if the community is not responsible, then why should it bear the consequences? That's not fair. Stuff like this should be kept between employer, employee, and government.
Well, I'd think that the trash collection is either directly employed by the government, or contracted through a company the government works with (city or county or some such smallish level) in which case the community is, in effect, the employer, and by highlighting this point to the people, can lead to the people pushing for them to be paid more.
If the truckers, as the picture implies, messed with the roads to prove a point rather than just not driving anywhere, that's something I'd say should be blocked, though, as that's actively creating a hazard rather than passively allowing things to happen.
Aside, as I'm confused, am I taking the pro-union/labour side in an argument against a European? Can we get a verdict on that?
But seriously, you are right. If these garbage men are dumping their garbage on public property, then that's fine. Now if they want to throw their stinkin garbage on my land, they will have a Hefty fight on their hands. Hefty: get it? Hahaha!
Lowie, I think you are, which is all sort of confusing considering our respective scores at the Political Compass in particular, and policy differences between Europe and America in general.
Because everything affects everything, like your examples themselves show. Striking workers are members of the community, whose work keeps the community in part itself working orderly. And breaking on their part that orderly routine of the community is one of the few and certainly the most effective way of getting their voices heard (and themselves seen). Workers are always in a worse negotiating situation compared to the employers, whether it's private or public companies. Time in a work negotiations is rarely on the side of the workers. So, they must have effective ways of making the employers want to strike a deal with them.
Most good things in modern industrialized countries tend to have been achieved partly through strikes. People who act utterly nicely, never bothering anyone else with their problems, tend to get kicked in the head (figuratively), instead of achieving better pay, shorter working hours or positive reforms.