snadge
metal alchemist
In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?
They don't need the Italians out, the Italian workers are in a win situation, read my above post.
In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?
So, what was the practical effect of that positive vote? In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?
So far, what I can see that the strike has won is 102 news jobs. That's a good thing, but it doesn't match with what was demanded. You could say that that's a result of the BJ4BW workers demand, although modified - by the bosses as a result of not wating to break discrimination law and becuase of existing contractual arrangements with IREM? - as the end result is that the Italians also have their jobs intact.
I've never seen someone so des[perate to label strikers as anti-foreign bigots in order to prove his political ibntegrity.
Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. I have clearly stated in my earlier post that there were both progressive and reactionary demands. You have to smear me to cover for your spinelessness in dealing with the latterI've never seen someone so desperate to label strikers as anti-foreign bigots in order to prove his political 'integrity'.
You know exactly what you're accusing me of you scumbagabsolutely - stinks
and then there was that post were he talked about himself as a "red" (when accusing me of "intimidation" - the fantasist). The only people who have ever used that term to me in the past are fash.
i'm not accusing you of that Spoin - but it shows you know fuck all
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demandYou didn't and still don't understand the nature of the dispute or the class issues that were clearly underlying
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demand
If I had been for the strike I would still have opposed the BJ4BW and 'locally skilled' demands tooth and nail.
You know exactly what you're accusing me of you scumbag
You simply can't answer it so you resort to insultsyou don't want to understand
tithead
Why didn't you support the strike? Even if it had been 'nationalist', what sort of leftist opposes striking workers?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demand
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour payed at the previously agreed NAECI rate be employed before cheaper, union busting European labour is a 'class' demand
You simply can't answer it so you resort to insults
that is because you are a capitalist lackey, you missed out an extremely important part in the above.
if the above is true, there is no need to employ foreign workers as it would become more cost effective to use local labour and only using foreign workers if needed due to skill shortages.
well one would in certain situations (as a leftist like) - the problem was this was not one of those situations - just superficially and completely misread on his part
Where is this from?
If I had come out in favour of the strike I would still have fought tooth and nail against the nationalist elements of the strike's demands and the BJ4BW sentiment among the mass of strikers.s/he's just desperatly trying to cover her/his own mistakes - more interested in how s/he is perceived than showing solidarity with the workers s/he condemns
Once strike action has been taken its not only the demands of workers but their organisation that is at stake. Even if action is taken for the wrong reasons, if it is successful then the workers will be in a position to put forward progressive demands.
I don't understand where Spion's instincts are coming from.
Just a general copy and paste mate:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6854
Actually the writer is based in Milan I think (unless she has moved again)
Once strike action has been taken its not only the demands of workers but their organisation that is at stake. Even if action is taken for the wrong reasons, if it is successful then the workers will be in a position to put forward progressive demands.
I don't understand where Spion's instincts are coming from.
a thought occurred to me last night, aren't/weren't the strikers essentially asking for the introduction of the equivalent of a docks labour scheme (as abolished by thatch in 89) for refinery workers?
"A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/04-again.htm
*falls off chair* *gets back up* Yes, that's spot onAgree - an activist would hardly cross a picket line even if they opposed demands in their entirety. They would be on the picket line arguing their case
In defense - Spion did argue that's what s/he would have done (theorecticaly)
No I did not. I said there were some reactionary demands among the strike's aims and sentiments. I did not say 'they were all reactionaries'. I'd call you thick, but I don't think you are, you are simply misrepresenting me to cover your position which is to take the 180 degree opposite of the 'they're all reactionaries' by trying to paint the strikers as 'they're all anti-racists'. It's clearly more complex than either of those silly caricatures- after spending the previous god knows how many posts showing how all these strikers were reactionaries
I didn't say it was. It was an answer to Knotted's question about how can leftists ever oppose strikes when that might mean their organisation might be destroyed. You really are dense and dishonest aren't you?Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh - a (secondhand) quote from Trotsky - you must be right then - I bow before your intellectual prowess
Yep, the situation at the refinary was exactly the same as the US in the 1930s
"A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/04-again.htm
If I had come out in favour of the strike I would still have fought tooth and nail against the nationalist elements of the strike's demands and the BJ4BW sentiment among the mass of strikers.
What evidence do we have that you did? You just pretended it didn't exist, that it was all a media lie.
You really are dense and dishonest aren't you?
It's clearly more complex than either of those silly caricatures
It means defending the union from destruction of its ability to operate. Not fooling ourselves that there are not reactionary elements to the strikers stated aims just because that might be similar to something the mdeia says. That's just straighforward self-deceptionExactly!!
Presumably this includes defending the trade union (or in our case the strikers) against slanders in the media rather than perpetuating those slanders ourselves.