Doesn't the union provide income during the strike?

Doesn't the union provide income during the strike? — Benkei

In this specific case, no. The union is not able to provide incomes. It is a situation on the edge.

This is a nicely constructed dilemma involving real choices which workers face. The frosting on the cake is the government's appropriate decision to reform the economy to reduce pollution. Will the cost be borne by workers alone or by the society more broadly?

Unions are an essential element in a progressive and democratic society, and they are a vital protection for workers -- provided they are strong. That is why the best medium and long-term option for a worker is to support the union and the strike. Only in the short run does it make sense to go back to work and put up with crappy wages and working conditions.

A competent government could organize the development of industries to replace collieries, petroleum refineries, gas plants with sustainable industries and training programs so that workers in the carbon industries will not end up unemployed / unemployable. A competent government would want to replace tax income from closed fossil fuel industries with taxes on sustainable energy production and use.

Reality may not conform to progressive democratic ideals, of course.

In the United States, the competent government has hobbled unions with laws that make union organizing difficult. Competent governors sometimes intervene in strikes by employing the state militia to protect strike breakers (even in liberal states like Minnesota). Competent propagandists have effectively devalued unionism in the collective mind-set of many Americans. Our competent national governments have opted not to do too much about oil and coal consumption.

In the United States, see, the competent government is pretty much on the side of the capitalists.

The boss's weapon is fear, the union's weapon is anger.

I prefer anger to fear. But many prefer fear. I don't think it comes down to duties as much as these two emotions -- which one a person lets rule them is how they'll decide to strike or scab. Or, if I were to put it in terms of duties, I'd say there isn't even a choice. But I doubt that's surprising ;).

In the real world, if there are extenuating circumstances people are allowed to continue working. There's also a vote for whether to strike, it's not simply declared by a leader.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me.

The United States is not the best example of how unionisation works.

And it's not difficult to formulate intractable moral issues. They are not as informative as folk might suppose. Usually, the solutions are ruled out by simple fiat, as at , in order to either force the intractability of the problem or to push for one answer over another.

The

nicely constructed dilemma involving real choices which workers face — BC

is mostly pretence.

The United States is not the best example of how unionisation works. — Banno

Which country did you have in mind as a good example?

As somebody put it, "The labor movement in the United States didn't die of neglect -- it was murdered". Murdered by laws which erected barriers to organization; murdered by very aggressive counter-union measures by capital (some of them illegal); murdered by outright state intervention to defeat strikes. Unions themselves were often enough corrupted by organized crime, which diminished their creditability.

However, organizing workers has usually been hard work, with or without an unfriendly state. The peak percentage of organized labor was 35%. Peak union membership was in 1979 at 21 million.

The
nicely constructed dilemma involving real choices which workers face
— BC
is mostly pretence. — Banno

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive, becoming active in the union, and in striking, especially when the employer is hostile. The risks are not a pretense. Strikes do not always succeed, and a failed strike can leave the union members broke and out in the cold.

If the legislation has any teeth, the mine will soon be closed anyway and everyone who can't find work in a more eco-friendly endeavour will be out of a job. I'm not sure what the union is striking for, or what the scabs hope to gain beyond a few more days' wages and maybe a thumping in the the alley after work.

What the union needs to hold out for is a settlement from the company. Tthey've pulled enough profits to pay the guys in the corner offices

A whopping $35 million. That's what the highest paid mining company CEO earned in 2021, according to data collected by Costmine Intelligence, part of The Northern Miner Group.

, so they can afford to pay the guys who bring up the coal. They can also afford to re-employ* the same people in their next venture.
*with a much better health insurance plan!

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive, becoming active in the union, and in striking, especially when the employer is hostile. The risks are not a pretense. Strikes do not always succeed, and a failed strike can leave the union members broke and out in the cold. — BC

I agree.

That's why I thought that duty doesn't leave a choice.

You may have a family. But do you think that the other strikers don't? They're already risking exactly what the OP sets up. Some cave to fear, or selfishness, and think of their own family in the moment. It's particularly difficult because a person has these connections, and that's a struggle.

But philosophically speaking the duty is clear: the strikers are risking their families already. You should do the same. Don't blame your fellow workers who are just asking for fairness to be able to take care of their families, blame the boss for not doing what's right!

Which should point out the importance of looking at, even if I'm wrong, fear and anger.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me. — Mikie

My point was to know if "individual" choices in edge circumstances are or not plausible. I think this is a good example, because the worker is not necessarily against trade unions but his personal situation is even more complex. I already know that in some countries the rights of the workers are covered if the go to strike. If I had put such guarantees in my OP, the dilemma would be senseless.

is mostly pretence. — Banno

Pretence means: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

My intention was not to "pretend", and believe it or not, the case I used as a dilemma, is more common in real life than we tend to think.

I do not get why you think the dilemma itself forces you to choose one option instead of the other.

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive, becoming active in the union, and in striking, especially when the employer is hostile. The risks are not a pretense. Strikes do not always succeed, and a failed strike can leave the union members broke and out in the cold. — BC

I agree.

Furthermore, your good points BC, my intention in this OP was to highlight the personal/familiar context, which tend to be sensitive. One worker could scab because of he feels at the risk he faces losing both employment and income. But his attitude is not selfish at all, because he does such act in benefit of another group: his family.

I like your point that strikes not always succeed, and that's why I guess there is a dilemma on the worker's context of this OP. What solution is most worthy to him to sacrifice?

Why can't the wife work?

You may have a family. But do you think that the other strikers don't? — Moliere

True.

But keep in mind that the worker of the example has problems in his family: the wife is already unemployed, one kid is sick and the other goes to college. Maybe the rest of the workers are covered up thanks to the incomes of their respective families...

Can the guy on strike get a temporary job outside the field he's in?

How long has the worker been with the union? Has the union treated him well? Does it feel like a family to him? Has it only been two weeks since he was hired?

Has the union made reasonable demands? Is it possible for the company to meet those demands?

My position is that unions and co-workers are owed some loyalty, but not complete loyalty, and workers are under no obligation to go down with sinking ships. Your family, otoh, is owed complete loyalty, except in rare Unabomber-type situations. I couldn't answer this based on the description given.

A lot of people in the world, we can even say everybody in the world, continuously, all the time, is in such situations of difficult choices. I think the final point that is worth to consider is not any particular aspect of particular situations, but what you are sensitive to, which depends on your culture, your personal history, your situation. So, at the end, what is most important is not what you will choose to do, but what you will cultivate in the future, which sensitivity, to make better and better choices in the future, as much as possible.

This is a perfect case of "either can be reasonable". Supporting your long term employment prospects is a reasonable goal. Providing for one's family in the short term is also reasonable. As is ditching working in an industry that is killing the climate and looking for a different job.

They're all OK, individual circumstances will guide individuals on which to do.

Why can't the wife work? — RogueAI

She can work, but she is unemployed. She was kicked off from her job due to the bankruptcy of the enterprise.

Can the guy on strike get a temporary job outside the field he's in? — RogueAI

Excellent question and that happens in real life too. For me, it will not be a problem and I will fully understand if the worker gets a temporary job. Yet, the trade unions would not be happy and would consider him a "scab"



Despite I agree that co-workers have the "duty" of showing compromise and loyalty, I think that individualism should be in the spot depending on the circumstances. Specifically, in this case, the worker has a lot of problems in his home and it seems that the trade union is not covering him put but coercing him to go on strike. At least that's how I see it...

I think what is key in this dilemma is who the worker owes more loyalty: his family or the miner's trade union (another kind of family)

I fully agree with your argument seeing the individualistic point of view. Nonetheless, I think it is important to consider that going to strike is not a guarantee to cover up your rights. As @BC perfectly explained, not all strikes succeed at the end.

So, joining the strike has a lot of uncertainty while the possibility of feeding your family is more granted.

I think what is key in this dilemma is who the worker owes more loyalty: his family or the miner's trade union (another kind of family) — javi2541997

It could also be convictions. My loyalty to my family would trump the union, but I've been a union president and head negotiator, so I would have a real tough time crossing a picket line, even in the situation in the OP.

Hi. I think the best option would be to adhere to the duty of commission. I say this because like John Stuart Mill stated:

"The distinction between these two kinds of moral obligation is practically material to the question of liberty and necessity. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception.”

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section6/

Therefore, it should be noted that preventing the consequences of not picketing would cause potentially the whole company to collapse because it might result in deterioration as by the attrition of their workers.

Which country did you have in mind as a good example? — BC

Any with a Labour Party. They are the places that developed a full relation between labour and policy. I agree with you that it's crying shame the US never achieved this, not just for the US but more broadly, for progressive politics.

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive — BC

Sure, that wasn't the pretence to which I was referring - that was rather the notion that moral dilemmas of this sort lead to a clearer picture of such situations, for the sort of reasons I gave. They are intended to be intractable, and the various proponents will go out of their way to reinforce this intractability. A few more examples of this have already emerged in this thread. It would be much better to look at historical cases, the miners and Thatcher, perhaps.

Pretence means: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true. — javi2541997

Yep. The pretence here is that this is an attempt to make an impossibly intractable situation appear realistic.

See

Why can't the wife work?
— RogueAI

She can work, but she is unemployed. — javi2541997

Thump. Any posited solution is immediately cut down by stipulation.

This is actually a problem with modal moral quandaries generally: you can always make them impossible to solve. Same goes for the misnamed "trolly" problem. That's why they make for long and often tedious threads.

My point was to know if "individual" choices in edge circumstances are or not plausible... — javi2541997

You are not going to get there, because you can always add something that renders the individual choice void.

Hello Justin.

I understand your point, but I disagree with the fact of only caring about the devastated consequences on the enterprise and not the family. You explained that, in the long term, it will be worse if the colliery closes because they all can lose their employment.

Nonetheless, this is not plausible. You are considering that the strike has 100 % chances of succeeding, which it isn't. But, on the other hand, feeding your family is more granted if you "scab"

Yep. The pretence here is that this is an attempt to make an impossibly intractable situation appear realistic. — Banno

I do not understand why you don't see this as realistic. I can share your arguments on the fact that we can always add something to that renders the individual choice void. This only makes the dilemma endless or difficult to solve, but not "unrealistic"

I do not understand why you don't see this as realistic. — javi2541997

Because "we can always add something". So whatever solution is added can be dismissed by mere fiat. As in, no, the union does not provide income support; no, your wife cannot have a job; and so on, for any proffered answer. So it makes it appear that there can be no solution, but this is just an artefact of the way the problem is set up.

Understood.

But my aim of publishing this post was not finding a solution, but to see what people think towards individualism. To be honest, in the specific case of the example, I'd choose to scab and provide my family an income despite that my co-workers would see me a very selfish person.

Although, there could be many alternatives and "additions" in these dilemmas, I think it is worthy to debate on how the individual decides to not follow up the group (duty of omission) because of personal circumstances.

But keep in mind that the worker of the example has problems in his family: the wife is already unemployed, one kid is sick and the other goes to college. Maybe the rest of the workers are covered up thanks to the incomes of their respective families... — javi2541997

Families are rarely in a state of perpetual comfort. There's always something to take care of. This is the common mantra of the scab: "I understand what you're doing, but I have to take care of my family" -- which is fear. The scab believes the boss is going to win, so the scab chooses the boss's side. This is to the detriment of the strikers, whose families are similarly unstable, have needs, and so forth. It's not a neutral act of duty, it's a person actively sabotaging the efforts of strikers in the name of their family: Family over Union.

A common act of social grace is to say something along the lines of "The spouse wouldn't allow it" or "My kid is at home sick", and I understand them to be bowing out of whatever it is we're doing. But they're usually speaking for themself, and sometimes the kid is at school and the parent just needs some time to themself and the only excuse people accept is some duty or other.

But when you're talking union the "my family" excuse is out the door -- buddy, we all have families. That's what we're doing this for.

It would be much better to look at historical cases, the miners and Thatcher, perhaps. — Banno

I agree here. Historical cases demonstrate how people have overcome various problems, or failed at overcoming various problems. What they lack in conceptual clarity they gain in fidelity to the vagaries of political action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968 is a good example because it also has a movie you can watch which I found satisfying. I like that it depicts strikes as scary things, because they are scary. You don't know the outcome of your actions, and you have the real possibility of losing.

But progress has only come from normal people being willing to do scary things.

Your job involves working at a colliery. The government is about to elaborate a new law reform that the main objective is to reduce pollution and develop an eco-friendly system.

Employment at collieries is at its risk. The leader of the miner's trade union prepares a big strike in your town. — javi2541997

This remains unclear. What is the objective of the strike? What are the employer's options?
If the strike succeeds, what does the worker gain? If it fails, what does the worker lose?

The worker's choice is purported to be between loyalties to union and family, but that is not the case in real life. The choice is between desired outcomes. What does this particular worker want?