🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Clementulus

TL;DR:

I agree. The employees demands are reasonable, it sounds like they are. But my issue is with UK law, the correct solution here would not be to force the employees back to work but rather to erase the law that prevents companies from firing them. At that point let the strike resolve in whatever way it will.. TheBut the current law int he UK is immoral and thus leads to immoral compromises like forcing the strikers back to work. It was the right choice given the legal limitations as you explained them, but the correct choice would have instead to give the company threat of being fired may make the strikers settle... but likewise the threat of the expense of loosing everyone if they fire one might likewise be pressure preventing them from firing. This seems the only correct solution to me

> Companies can hire scabs if they want, but again where would the big three auto manufacturers find several thousand trained, non-union technicians just sitting on their hands waiting to scab out their already marketable skills?

Offer them enough money they will leave their other jobs to work for you.. The point of a union is to make it so expensive and hard that is more economical to negotiate, as it should be.

> You cannot be fired for the explicit purpose that you participate in a legal strike or picket line, if the company wants it can disolve and lay off everyone at once but most billion dollar companies probably arent gonna do that

If they cant fire someone for not showing up to work (regardless if its due to them striking or not), then I would agree with forcing them back to work... that said I dont think this is how it should be. The company should have the option to fire them (and face public back lash) for not doing their job.

> Literally the whole point of a union is so that a company wont just fire everyone who asks for a raise and keep those too scared to ask. When labour stands together they have more leverage to bargain with.

I agree, but that shouldnt be as a legal restriction... The idea should be that firing **everyone** is just too damn expensive. And if they fire one of them everyone will quit their job because they agreed to do so. This negotiating pressure should be what stops them from firing people, not a law.

@icedquinn

Yes, but i would hope that we would hit strategic military targets and when possible avoid civilians... there may be collateral damage sure, but my point is we should treat every situation with nuance and not just reflect our enemies morality unless we have to to survive, and maybe not even then depending on your morality

@thendrix

@icedquinn

It certainly didnt... but if your response to that is to nuke all of russia and being ok killing the people who are even against the war, and even the freedom fighters who are russian but opposing it... that would be wrong morally, and not something I would support.

@thendrix

@thendrix

On an individual level I agree, if they are willing to kill you but you arent willing to kill them, you will be the one to suffer..

But applying this to groups in aggregate, or in general applying the logical fallacy that a part of the group has the same properties as the group, is dangerous at best.

@icedquinn

@icedquinn

> did i stutter

You didnt stutter, but you were non-specific.

Does "they" refer to a collection groups, or does "they" refer to a collection of individuals... are you talking about treating they collectively as an aggegrate, or they as a set of individuals... are you applying this test to the whole or the part?

@icedquinn are we speaking in aggregate or as individuals?

In others words should i be willing to do to the group what 90% of the group is willing to do to me, even if that member of the group is not part of the 90%?