undefined | Better HN

0 pointspydry4y ago0 comments

>And they often use violence or threat of violence to try to stop this - see their reaction to 'scabbing'.

If it's a competition for who has managed the most extreme violence in relation to an industrial dispute in America the prize would go to the manager of a coal mine in west virginia who brought in a private air force to bomb strikers (battle of blair mountain).

I somehow doubt youll find a union that has managed that level of unbridled violence.

The most extreme violence isnt in defence of livelihoods, it's in the service of profit.

0 comments

chrisseaton4y ago

That was in the 1920s - that's not something I'm legitimately worried about.

But it is a routine occurrence to have picket lines in industrial disputes today, and to deliberately harass people who choose to go into work.

In the coal mining strikes in the UK in the 80s it got to the point where union members literally killed a taxi driver for taking a worker past a picket line.

Google aren't going to kill an Uber driver for taking me to work at Facebook instead.

pydryOP4y ago

Google would absolutely employ violence to defend its profits if it felt that its profits were seriously under threat and it thought violence was a viable tactic. It isnt. It's very far away from that. These things are a nuisance to them no more.

The united fruit company paid for paramilitaries to assassinate strikers in Central America.

This is a world away from dropping a brick on a taxi because your livelihood is under threat.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse