What is the objective of the strike? — Vera Mont

Avoid the closure of the colliery. Thus, they would keep their jobs.

What are the employer's options? — Vera Mont

I do not consider it as "option" but a duty. The worker of this example is already represented by their secretary of miner's trade union. This is who proposes the strike, expecting that every miner will go because it is their moral duty.

If the strike succeeds, what does the worker gain? — Vera Mont

He keeps his job at the colliery, but...

If it fails, what does the worker lose? — Vera Mont

Here is the main problem and the uncertainty of the worker. What will happen if the strike doesn't succeed? Most important: who covers up the situation of his family during the strike? Because this issue can take months...

The worker's choice is purported to be between loyalties to union and family, but that is not the case in real life. — Vera Mont

It is interesting that you all say this is not a realistic scenario. :lol:
To be honest, I still do not understand why you see it that way...

What does this particular worker want? — Vera Mont

If you were the worker, what would you want?

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. — Moliere

Good point, Molliere and thanks for providing your arguments. I am seeing the dilemma in a different perspective now. Despite I didn't consider the familiar context of the rest of the workers, I wanted to use as an example a miner who is in a more "delicate" position than the others. I mean, there is always one specific person who, for whatever reason, is in a worse position than the rest.

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

Or isn't it legal to strike? Yet @Benkei's question is really important here.

Here is the main problem and the uncertainty of the worker. What will happen if the strike doesn't succeed? Most important: who covers up the situation of his family during the strike? Because this issue can take months... — javi2541997

Fucking weasels in that trade union I say, that cannot then give assistance to member workers when they go on strike! Where the hell have gone the money that you have paid the trade union just for these kind of situations? Jesus, that's the 1.0 thing for a trade union to do.

I say just fuck them, it's all lost anyway. Start looking for another job IMMEDIATELY because once that the coal mine closes, you'll be competing with all the hard working guys for those open positions in the area. Yeah, don't bother about those that will just bitch about everything, drink beer and have fights with their wives. Either you will be one of them or then MOVE ON. Those who don't move on, hoping for the collier to be opened by some miracle or some populist Trump idiot that will descend from heaven and "turn things around" will only make the environment be gloomy. It was just a workplace and a job, that can and do disappear. It was just a service you provided for which you got money. Nothing else. Get over it.

And if you have a sick child, heck, the choice is a no brainer: your family, those that really depend on you, should come first. You don't owe the trade union and especially the company that you have worked for anything. Once you move on to another job, they really won't be crying after you. Yet for your children you are one of the most important persons in their lives.

And if your wife cannot find a job, then you should look somewhere else. If you give more importance to your present job or especially to those incompetent assholes who cannot run a trade union, then obviously you have your problems in putting important matters in your life first.

And look for work somewhere else with your wife. You are a team and it's your children. Would the two of you get jobs somewhere else? Then move out and don't be too sentimental about it. There's enough of people that simply will stay in a dead end place that offers no job positions and it's not going to be pretty sight. The bleakness will just create apathy and you will feel like a failure. And that's the reason why the unemployed don't start revolutions: it's a personal stigma in this society. You'll have the memories of the past, but you cannot live in them and they will not put food on the table.

Avoid the closure of the colliery. Thus, they would keep their jobs. — javi2541997

How does a strike accomplish that. The demand "Keep us digging coal or we'll stop digging coal!" is nonsense. The strike must have been called in direct response to some action the company was intent on taking in order to keep the mine open. How could a strike prevent the employer going out of business? Nor does keeping a mine open guarantee that all employees continue in their jobs.

I do not consider it as "option" but a duty. — javi2541997

The employers have no duty to anyone, other paying whatever taxes they can't evade.
They do need to respond a situation. As I see it, their options are:
1. To invest in cleaner upgrades and continue operations.
2. Reduce the scope of the operation and lay off part of the workforce.
3. Invest in automation and dispense with miners entirely.
4. Close the mine and move to a state/country with fewer restrictions.
5. Stop mining coal and turn the mine into some other business.

If you were the worker, what would you want? — javi2541997

An honest job with decent pay, working conditions and benefits package. The man in the example doesn't have health insurance or savings, so he must have been in a precarious position before the new legislation came into effect. So, the outcome he is in a position to want - and therefore support - depends on 1. what the union's demands are and 2. whether the company is able and likely to grant them.

It is interesting that you all say this is not a realistic scenario. :lol:
To be honest, I still do not understand why you see it that way... — javi2541997

Because of the way you set it up, with no regard to the government's role, the employer's side of it, or the union's rationale for calling a strike.

I'd echo @Banno's sentiments here. A particular worker is in a particular time and place. The scenario is already abstract from the outset: it's a deontological problem of choice. For particulars we should look to history.

But there's no choice in the abstract. If you're a worker then, like it or not, scabbing will hurt strikers. Even if the worker really wants to scab that will occur, and that's not really defensible on ethical, deontic grounds. It falls pretty easily to the first formulation of the categorical imperative because not everyone can scab -- if they did then there'd be no strike and they'd all be back at work.

One of the things missing from the abstract problem is that unions are democratic organizations. So there's already social responsibility in the mix which isn't represented by the problem.

Maybe if you weren’t paying for the salaries and benefits of union administration you could use that money to save for emergencies.

Thank you, ssu. I think you are the only who actually understood what I proposed on this dilemma. Maybe, it is a matter of culture and circumstances. Most of the users of TPF are citizens from Anglo-Saxon countries which their economy goes on forward and they tend to have a lot of job opportunities. So, they give for granted that if a strike fails, well just go to another job or whatever.

One of the things that surprised me the most is that some members don't get why the worker's wife is unemployed. Welcome to the reality of other countries. How lucky they are for not living in Spain, when it is common for women to stay at home and raising the kids and the family depends on the husband's income, which tends to be low. Usually, those women perceive a compensation from the state, but it is low too.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. Simple as that, and sometimes they do not care enough about their workers. It is a utopia because the worker is attached to both the enterprise and the trade union. Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually? This is why I started this OP.

Because of the way you set it up, with no regard to the government's role, the employer's side of it, or the union's rationale for calling a strike. — Vera Mont

I didn't know a dilemma needed to be that realistic... I guess that if you put a lot of information, the debate we are currently having can decay. That's why I decided to start this OP, to read different opinions.

The employers have no duty to anyone, — Vera Mont

Of course they have and a lot. Starting with the entrepreneur who pays their income and ending up with the state when taxes are paid.

I mean, there is always one specific person who, for whatever reason, is in a worse position than the rest. — javi2541997

Yup.

But here's where history can serve as a better guide to understanding the problems and decisions a worker faces. Union drives have succeeded and failed, unions have been successful in one generation and fade away with future generations, or experience resurgences. That's the ebb and flow of historical reality. (One might be tempted to call it dialectical ;) )

For instance, unions cross the anglosphere -- they are organized all across the world, across different ethnicities and language-groups. Some of the most inspiring stories of strikes come from overcoming differences in language, culture, and expectations. Unions thrived prior to women becoming more prominent within the workforce as well, to speak to another point you brought up.

And sometimes trade unions aren't even as effective as a political lobby. Sometimes they're a money laundering operation for the mafia, and the contracts they service won't protect anything, nor are they actually run on democratic principles.

All these possibilities are explored in the history of labor.

I didn't know a dilemma needed to be that realistic.. — javi2541997

If you want someone to make a choice, you need to be clear what they're choosing between.
You haven't even said who or what the employer is.

Of course they [employers] have and a lot [of duty]. Starting with the entrepreneur who pays their income and ending up with the state when taxes are paid. — javi2541997

What's that to do with the worker or the strike?

But there's no choice in the abstract. — Moliere

Exactly! The individual needs a pretty solid basis on which to make so practical a decision. Real life is not a deontological exercise.

If you're a worker then, like it or not, scabbing will hurt strikers.

That's an assumption not always borne out by results. The strikers are not necessarily represented by the union leadership; they may be incorrect in their assessment of the situation; this particular worker may be aware that the strike is futile.
If he makes his decision on nothing more than loyalty to the union, it's just another case of blind obedience, not a moral or ethical one.

That's an assumption not always borne out by results. The strikers are not necessarily represented by the union leadership; they may be incorrect in their assessment of the situation; this particular worker may be aware that the strike is futile.
If he makes his decision on nothing more than loyalty to the union, it's just another case of blind obedience, not a moral or ethical one. — Vera Mont

When does scabbing not hurt strikers?

"The strike is futile" is fear, as I said. So that worker is picking on the basis of their fear, because they believe the boss will win so they're hedging their bets and helping the boss break the strike. It's not "nothing but loyalty", but an awareness of how the world works -- if you help the boss break the strike then you're putting your family ahead of the other families that are also risking themselves. That's the choice being made.

The real choice... eh, we're not in a union drive here so it's a bit idle to talk about "the real choice", unless we're going to use historical examples.

Either way I don't think you can make the case that scabbing is following a duty, which is what the original scenario is speaking in terms of, unless the only duty you have is to yourself and your family. (which, in truth, is where a lot of people reside in terms of willfully chosen duties -- duty to union, outside of union families, is often seen as a naive position. But it's not. It's the only reason workers have what they have today, and it's the reason why they're losing more of it too)

Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually?

There isn’t. Unions often have the power to discipline their members, whether by fine or the denial of union benefits. So crossing the picket-line may come at extra cost to you and your family. It’s an extra layer of collectivist bureaucracy, meaning the decisions are made by a faction of the membership in tandem with the forces of union administration, whether you agree with it or not.

I agree, and your post explains very clearly what I - somehow - tried to tell in the OP. Although I do not pretend to delegitimize the role of trade unions has had during the development of the working-class, I think these groups have some shadows in the structures too. And, of course, they are and will always be the main interlocutor between the workers and the enterprises/government.

This is why I wanted to know if there is a possibility for a worker to disengage from this structure. When I read papers and news related to this issue, I figured out that a "scab" is badly seen among workers and most of them end up disowned. Yet, I was curious to understand the purposes of a scab and then some delicate situations like my OP could exist. Even, the trade unions can act aggressively towards the workers and threaten them. Acting like a gang, as you explained.

When does scabbing not hurt strikers? — Moliere

It may hurt their feelings - assuming they all trust the leadership as much as you do - but there are occasions when it makes no material difference. They're already hurting themselves.

if you help the boss break the strike then you're putting your family ahead of the other families that are also risking themselves. That's the choice being made. — Moliere

That's the question I asked, at least twice. Exactly what choice is being made - what are they striking for?
They cannot keep a mine open in despite of both the owners' interest and the government regulation. If the mine is going to be closed, none of the miners gain anything at all, except the few who kept working long enough to get a final paycheque.
In the given example, the strike makes no sense; the workers are only preventing an orderly, arbitrated dissolution to the enterprise and jeopardizing or forfeiting their severance pay or compensation settlement. If the leadership called a strike without taking the workers' interest into full consideration, no worker owes them loyalty and any worker who can see it would be a fool to obey without question.

duty to union, outside of union families, is often seen as a naive position. — Moliere

That, too, was one of my questions: Duty to the union, or obedience to the leadership? I have been a staunch trade unionist - even to refusing to cross a picket line as a client, when I had not been informed of the issue in contention. In fact, I voted for the miner in the OP to join the strike....
....until I began to wonder how this strike was supposed to benefit the workers.
I'm also aware that the leadership can be corrupt or short-sighted. I consider myself socialist, but not a blind idealist. As presented in the example, the call to strike seems irrational, and the lack of union support for the strikers is suspect.

Exactly, NOS.

There are a lot of evidences which prove that trade unions act as a mafia group. Paradoxically, they can be even more oppressive than the entrepreneur himself. I like how you highlight that the taken decisions by the leaders are accepted whether the workers like it or not, or affects or not their income or rights. If you want to make an individualistic move, they quickly will call you scab.

Hi!
Nice topic!
I have answered "scabbing", taking of course into consideration the reason for scabbing you have mentioned.
I believe this is the most rational thing to do, and any rational person who is honestly answering to this poll should do the same. Because the question is not about "idealism" and it is easy to answer in favor of striking if you are young and/or immature and/or don't think of how such the situation would be in real life if you actually were to decide for yourself in such a situation and you were facing the conditions mentioned in the description of the topic.

There is also a very important other reason: Your group is not your colleagues or the syndicate alone, which you have to support by going to strike. Your group is the whole company you are working in, and mainly the owner and the management. Because it is them that are paying you so that you can support yourself and your family. So, you owe them more than you owe to your colleagues and the syndicate.

This is why I wanted to know if there is a possibility for a worker to disengage from this structure. When I read papers and news related to this issue, I figured out that a "scab" is badly seen among workers and most of them end up disowned. Yet, I was curious to understand the purposes of a scab and then some delicate situations like my OP could exist. Even, the trade unions can act aggressively towards the workers and threaten them. Acting like a gang, as you explained. — javi2541997

When I said "mafia laundering" I wasn't making a metaphor. I mean there exist legal entities in the United States which are registered as unions but are operated by the actual mafia as a money laundering operation. They don't really service their contracts very well, and they don't even bother to fight for a better one. They'll just re-up the contract for as long as they can so they can keep the structure, and for the most part the contracts are hardly enforced anyways.

The funny thing here is that the solution is still the same. It's not disengagement, but engagement: you organize. Else you just let the mafia run the show. Same goes for if you disagree with leadership: you organize.

Participation is what keeps a democratic organization alive. A worker can disengage with the structure, sure, but I think you'd have a hard time making the case that it's a duty to do so unless a worker's duty is only to themself and their family. (which others have basically said so far -- so if you take that extra step then you can even be secure in yourself and know you've done your duty)

Now insofar that democratic structures are gang-like then a union can act like a gang. But this is more of a reaction to having to deal with social structures and a desire to be independent than it is engaging with the reality of trade unionism: The next job, contra @ssu, will have similar structures in place. The cowboys of the world, as I call them, are entirely selfish as I set it out: they're there for themselves and their family, and that's that.

But the union movement benefits them even if they decide to hamper it. That's why it'd be hard to make the case that it's a duty -- if you're a worker then you're already indebted to a long history of struggle. There are the cowboys who want to be individuals, but by that they're making the choice I said: they're choosing their own family over the families of others.

And that's true even if human nature is basically bad, and so unions, too, are of course corruptable. But that's not what they are, and that's kind of the vibe that your scenario presents: it would be naive to believe that every union is a shining beacon of goodness, or something along those lines. I don't even think "goodness" enters the picture -- it's about power, simple as. But it's similarly foolish to judge unions on the basis of the single scariest thing that a worker might have to do. That's not even most of what a union does. Most unions try to avoid strikes.

As presented in the example, the call to strike seems irrational. — Vera Mont

That's because it's meant to ;).

At least so I'm maintaining, while maintaining that it's not possible to make the argument from duties to scab.

But it is just an example, a hypothetical.

The example I used the strike was for equal pay for women. They didn't win in the first strike, but they got some victories, and then some odd 15 years later the original demand was met with a longer strike.

There are a lot of evidences which prove that trade unions act as a mafia group. — javi2541997

Please share. I'm aware of some infiltration of some unions by organized crime (also by law-enforcement agencies and political agitators) but not of a union leadership itself initiating criminal activity. I'm also aware of some pretty underhanded moves by conservative governments to undermine trade unions.

If you want to make an individualistic move, they quickly will call you scab. — javi2541997

The only individualistic move that's called scabbing is continuing to work during a strike. Sometimes scabs are bussed in - hired from outside the union - to break a strike. Sometimes police or mercenaries are employed to break a strike.
But there is no point in forcing workers back into a closed mine.

Your group is the whole company you are working in, and mainly the owner and the management. — Alkis Piskas

Managements rarely see it that way; rarely show reciprocal loyalty to the employees. It usually is very much an adversarial situation. Bosses like to portray themselves as "job creators", while, in fact, they give the least remuneration they possible can in return for the most profit they can squeeze out of the workers and very often put workers at unnecessary risk to cut corners.

So, you owe them more than you owe to your colleagues and the syndicate. — Alkis Piskas

You owe them a fair day's work for a fair day's pay - nothing more.

The example I used the strike was for equal pay for women. They didn't win in the first strike, but they got some victories, and then some odd 15 years later the original demand was met with a longer strike. — Moliere

That's a rational cause, worth persevering in. I've been in unions at various points in their life-cycle, including an attempt to form a brand new one. That was defeated, and two years later, the same workers opted to join one of big, powerful unions, in which they would be an insignificant cog. Not a great outcome, but a rational choice that resulted in better pay for my ex-colleagues. By then, I was working elsewhere as a member of one of the big, powerful unions - which served us very well, as it happens, and deserved our support.

The OP example was questionable, so I questioned it. Is that not why we're here?

I've been in unions at various points in their life-cycle, including an attempt to form a brand new one. That was defeated, and two years later, the same workers opted to join one of big, powerful unions, in which they would be an insignificant cog. Not a great outcome, but a rational choice that resulted in better pay for my ex-colleagues. By then, I was working elsewhere as a member of one of the big, powerful unions - which served us very well, as it happens, and deserved our support. — Vera Mont

I started as an organizer on my own shop floor and then eventually became a staffer for a different union in another life. But not so much union activity now that I'm doing the sciences -- scientists, among other professionals, have a hard time seeing themselves as "workers". The images of the factory are still strong, even though there's no need for a factory to have a union that works -- all you need is solidarity. Also I've had my fill of fighting. Being an organizer is a stressful, thankless job where everyone blames you for everything and most of what you do is run around putting out fires for less than the members you service make ;).

There are definitely flaws in unions which are worth noting and learning from. They're human organizations. And from a Marxist perspective it's generally viewed that unions can't be strong enough to compete with capital, so there are even political reasons to criticize unions from the left.

I guess I just don't see the scenario as presenting the flaws and how to learn from them as much as giving us a very common image that the boss uses: the image of the poor, benighted worker who has two bosses, the union boss and the company boss, and he's just trying to feed his family.

The OP example was questionable, so I questioned it. Is that not why we're here? — Vera Mont

It is. But I thought @Banno had a good point. There's a very rich history, and I thought the scenario was kind of highlighting the worst aspects of a union without really getting at how people have actually overcome (or failed to) these sorts of things. So I suppose I'm just questioning the question. The annoying philosophy thing.

Being an organizer is a stressful, thankless job where everyone blames you for everything and most of what you do is run around putting out fires for less than the members you service make — Moliere

No sh...er... kidding!
Anyway, I voted "correctly" before questioning.

Further questioning: I know something about the history of trade union movements and labour parties. The present is pretty dim, especially in the US, but other countries, too, where a succession of governments have been systematically kneecapping unions.

But what of their future? Given the state of automation and collar-bleaching... I wonder. Teachers, librarians, nurses, yes. Who else is, or can be organized into, a progressive political force?

Managements rarely see it that way; rarely show reciprocal loyalty to the employees. It usually is very much an adversarial situation. — Vera Mont

I believe this is quite a biased view, and not a very reasonable one either, Vera Mont. Management works for the interests of their company. As with the blue-collar workers --I can't differentiate them as "employees", because managment personnel is among them too :smile:-- and it is the company that pays them too, so it's only logical that they are loyal to it. They have no obligation to be loyal to the blue-collars, but only to be fair, have good relations with them, and all that. Besides, the same applies to the blue-collars.

Anyway, as a freelancer in most of my life, I have a little only experience in working for a company, I had some disagreements with management, but never a feeling that they were adversial to me. The same thing also applied to my colleagues, as I could see and undestand. I have neither heard complaints --maybe one or two, from what I can remember-- from my friends and relatives against the companies that were and are working in,

You owe them a fair day's work for a fair day's pay - nothing more. — Vera Mont

Right.

— Alkis Piskas

Management works for the interests of their company. — Alkis Piskas

Which means shareholders, waiting for their quarterly dividend and looking for the value of their stock to rise.

As with the blue-collar workers --I can't differentiate them as "employees", because managment personnel is among them too — Alkis Piskas

The paymaster sure can!

The ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker pay soared to 399-to-1 under EPI’s realized measure of CEO pay, the highest ratio on record, up from 366-to-1 in 2020 and a massive increase from 59-to-1 in 1989.

I believe this is quite a biased view, — Alkis Piskas

Indeed! And I come by that bias through factual information, alongside friends-and-relativers hearsay.

The Abandonment of Small Cities in the Rust Belt
Oct. 10, 2019
Things began to change for these communities in the 1980s, when American corporations began to outsource production and re-engineer their organizations to adapt to globalization.

Millions of Americans struggle to get by on low wages, often without any benefits such as paid sick leave, a pension, or even health insurance. Their difficult lives are made immeasurably harder when they do the work they have been hired to do, but their employers refuse to pay, pay for some hours but not others, or fail to pay overtime premiums when employees’ hours exceed 40 in a week.

As it also happens, one big company contracted a friend of mine some years ago. Two months later, his agent reported that they still had not received $#1. My friend packed up and left; the agency was eventually able to beat his fee and their percentage out of the company. It sometimes happens that they never pay up.

Why U.S. Law Makes It Easy for Donald Trump To Stiff Contractors

Hello Alkis!

As it is, and I totally back up your argument. I didn't think of that, but you are right. The co-workers are just colleagues in an industrial activity and we only share time and space. While our family is more personal. A wife and the children are those who (in most of the cases) will accompany you in all the moments in the life.

Furthermore, those personal and sensitive arguments, I think there is a rational one: What kind of person am I if I can't help my home? Why can't I act individually and stay away from the stubborn behaviour of trade unions? I think it is crazy to postpone trade union's interests to my family's.

Please share. — Vera Mont

Two important examples:

Strike of October 1972 (Chile)

Jimmy Hoffa

Well, it is interesting to see that mafia trade unions share the same industry/commerce: trucks and transportation. To understand how poisonous can a trade union be, we have to look at Jimmy Hoffa's story. Hoffa became involved with organized crime from the early years of his Teamsters work, a connection that continued until his disappearance in 1975. He was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud in 1964 in two separate trials. He was imprisoned in 1967 and sentenced to 13 years. In mid-1971.

The co-workers are just colleagues in an industrial activity and we only share time and space. — javi2541997

Oh they're a lot more than that! They're fellow rowers in the same galley; all of your fates are linked by united action or wrecked by division and infighting. If the wife had had a decent union, she might now have a severance package that could see the family through an illness and a strike. The union can revive a failing business, except sometimes by buying out the incompetent owners, but it can force a profitable one to treat its workers more fairly.

I know something about the history of trade union movements and labour parties. The present is pretty dim, especially in the US, but other countries, too, where a succession of governments have been systematically kneecapping unions.

But what of their future? Given the state of automation and collar-bleaching... I wonder. Teachers, librarians, nurses, yes. Who else is, or can be organized into, a progressive political force? — Vera Mont

I'm out of the game, and I broke my crystal ball awhile ago, but my sympathy for the future of labor has always been the service sector. But as long as there's a money-flow within a firm and a group of people who depend upon a wage from the firm then there's lies the possibility to unionize: call centers, food chains, delivery drivers, uber/lyft drivers, amazon, wal-mart, target, alphabet workers, public sector workers, migrant farmers, transit workers, baristas, catering companies, hotels, non-profits...

When people talk about the dimness of labor I note how the golden age of labor was something of a fluke, and it only came about due to fights under arguably worse circumstances (sometimes the same, in the most extreme cases -- migrant farmers come to mind here particularly). What worked then is what would work now, if people decided to stop living in their little family-bubble.

And that's why I think the scenario, as posited, is basically reactionary: it's the scabs prayer.

Two important examples: — javi2541997

I was looking for something more up-to-date. But, yes, I knew about those. Hardly enough to justify a blanket statement regarding the present:

There are a lot of evidences which prove that trade unions act as a mafia group. — javi2541997

When people talk about the dimness of labor — Moliere

I was talking about the dimness of outlook for labour. Even the supposedly leftist political parties have gone all middle-class - the entire working class has been disappeared in the fog of rhetoric. But increasing and accelerating automation does pretty much forecast the physical disappearance of the blue collar jobs, as well as many pink, grey, green and white ones, not to mention all those pajamas at their telephones and computers.

What worked then is what would work now, if people decided to stop living in their little family-bubble.

Someday we'll find it, https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/the-fir