Immigrant workers are scab workers?

[SuburbanCasual]

Are they? Many of the arguments made in favour of an immigration free for all (well free for the middle classes anyway!) is that we should show support for these brave workers who only want to provide for their families and work hard for the benefit of the 'economy'. Much the same was said by the right about those who scabbed on the miner's strike, indeed the rightwing press of the day smeared the striking miners with similer epiphets to those used by the liberal left against those workers who question what benefits immigration brings them now.

The left didn't support scabs then, why now?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Oh good! Another discussion about immigrants! Just what we need!


Bloody epiphets - stealing our synonyms!

 

[exosculate]

Its a question I've never had a good answer to.

Using scab labour internally is bad

But importing in (what amounts to scab ) labour from abroad is good.

No idea why most of the left think like that.

 

[exosculate]

Oh good! Another discussion about immigrants! Just what we need!


Bloody epiphets - stealing our synonyms!

Its a good question which has never been given a decent answer on urban TBH.

 

[laptop]

Someone's a bit slack on their definition of "scab", aren't they?





Someone's a fucking troll.

 

[exosculate]

Someone's a bit slack on their definition of "scab", aren't they?





Someone's a fucking troll.

Probably right, but it is interesting how the undercutting of livelihoods is looked at completely differently.

 

[Fullyplumped]

They probably said the same about women workers sixty years ago after the war.

There has been a constant series of these threads having a go at new entrants to the labour market. Now they're scabs, apparently. I really don't think anything new is being added. Does Migrationwatch have a forum for these threads?

 

[laptop]

Does Migrationwatch have a forum for these threads?

I think it's called St*rmfr*nt.

 

[TeeJay]

Probably right, but it is interesting how the undercutting of livelihoods is looked at completely differently.

Do workers in one country undercut the livelihoods of workers in another country?

What difference does their location make?

What is the definition of a "scab" worker anyway?

 

[danny la rouge]

Its a question I've never had a good answer to.

Using scab labour internally is bad

But importing in (what amounts to scab ) labour from abroad is good.

No idea why most of the left think like that.

I've attempted to answer that in the past. The example I gave was from the syndicalist movement of 100 years ago. Basically you need to unionise the immigrants. You show them solidarity and hospitality, and in turn they won't under cut you. It was the model used in France and America particularly, and it worked.

(Until the bosses got wise and started demonising both the migrant workers and the working class organisers).

 

[poster342002]

I'm not sure you could call it scab labour as such, but it certainly allows an unprecedentant permanent "buyer's market" - allowing employers to be ultra-choosy about who they employ and on whatever ridiculous terms they like. It becomes neigh-on impossible to gain any sort of position of workers' strength under such conditions.

People tell me of the days of "labour shortages" when workers could walk out of one job and be in another that same afternoon - such was the position of strength caused by shortages of labour. They were also better placed to make greater demands upon management as a result - it wasn't easy to get new workers quickly if you sacked them.

We'll not see those days again, now.

 

[belboid]

Its a question I've never had a good answer to.

Using scab labour internally is bad

But importing in (what amounts to scab ) labour from abroad is good.

No idea why most of the left think like that.

it's a ridiculous question that has been answered several times at least, most likely in one of the absurd number of threads of this very page.

'Seeking work' is not scabbing by anyones reckoning (except perhaps that of racist morons). Scabbbing is crossing a picket linem, its quite straight forward.

the answer to the moronic question has been provided by Danny, I shall just add the point that it is racist fuckwits who divide our class against each other, and they do so by making 'incomers' scapegoats.

Congratualations suburbancasual, you are the bosses best friend today.

 

[poster342002]

How is encouraging a permanent buyer's market going to benefit ANY workers? Surely that only benefits the bosses?

 

[Kameron]

How is encouraging a permanent buyer's market going to benefit ANY workers? Surely that only benefits the bosses?

Except of course the Bosses would say that it benefiting them is only really a side effect of it benefiting the customers.

 

[belboid]

How is encouraging a permanent buyer's market going to benefit ANY workers? Surely that only benefits the bosses?

a - that's a completely different question
b - it has also been done to death on here
c - who is talking of 'encouraging' such a market?

 

[poster342002]

a - that's a completely different question
b - it has also been done to death on here
c - who is talking of 'encouraging' such a market?

a) - no it's not. It's part of the same question because THAT (a permenet buyer's market, jobwise) is what it is de-facto causing.

b) - true; but no coherent reply has ever been put forward in answer to this question. Just evasions and wrigglings.

c) - the trots defences and excuses for it amount to such.

 

[twistedAM]

I've attempted to answer that in the past. The example I gave was from the syndicalist movement of 100 years ago. Basically you need to unionise the immigrants. You show them solidarity and hospitality, and in turn they won't under cut you. It was the model used in France and America particularly, and it worked.

(Until the bosses got wise and started demonising both the migrant workers and the working class organisers).

Couple of points;

1. A month or so ago there was stuff in the news about Polish workers organising themselves cos they were fed up of having lower wages than their English equivalents. It's a start but I think a lot of what the theme of this thread is about is bosses using immigrant workers in the lowest paid jobs, often illegally. There used to be MPs around who would blow the whistle on this shit but after three rounds of Blairite parliamentary selections there are virtually none left.

2. America..the bosses soon got wise to it and there's loads of stuff written about the thuggery of the Irish in particular towards ex-slaves in Boston and NYC during the mid 19th century, sponsored of course by the man.

 

[poster342002]

Except of course the Bosses would say that it benefiting them is only really a side effect of it benefiting the customers.

But no mention from them of how a permanent buyer's market it is detrimental to the workers.

 

[SuburbanCasual]

a - that's a completely different question - No it's not, just a better wording maybe!
b - it has also been done to death on here - Not really.
c - who is talking of 'encouraging' such a market? - er the CBI and various other rightwing pro immigration pressure groups.

And I doubt my bosses would think of me as their best friend!

I was not stating that immigrant labour IS scab labour, but asking if it is, given the similarities.

 

[Kameron]

But no mention from them of how a permanent buyer's market it is detrimental to the workers.

Workers and buyers are the same people though aren't they? You only work in one place so the choices you make as a worker are focused there, as a buyer you affect thousands of businesses, your affect is multiplied.

 

[belboid]

a) - no it's not. It's part of the same question because THAT (a permenet buyer's market, jobwise) is what it is de-facto causing.

b) - true; but no coherent reply has ever been put forward in answer to this question. Just evasions and wrigglings.

c) - the trots defences and excuses for it amount to such.

disagree; by coherent you actually mean 'one i agree with'; and, no, they dont, even if they dont convince you.

 

[belboid]

a - that's a completely different question - No it's not, just a better wording maybe!
b - it has also been done to death on here - Not really.
c - who is talking of 'encouraging' such a market? - er the CBI and various other rightwing pro immigration pressure groups.

And I doubt my bosses would think of me as their best friend!

I was not stating that immigrant labour IS scab labour, but asking if it is, given the similarities.

fuck me you must be dim if you don't think the immigration argument hasnt been done time and time again here. just go search for the threads durutti and torybaldwin start, you may have to go back a bit as most people are bored shitless with there obsession, but there ya go.

You didnt quite state that immigration WAS sscabbing, just that it had exactly the same result. I wish you lots of luck when you go and try and recruit some recent immigrants to a union, what will your first line be - "you're all scabby bastards who should fuck off home, but...."??

 

[poster342002]

Workers and buyers are the same people though aren't they? You only work in one place so the choices you make as a worker are focused there, as a buyer you affect thousands of businesses, your affect is multiplied.

Bit difficult to be a buyer/customer though, if you can't actually get a job in order to pay for these things because there's 20+ people* chasing each job vacancy and the bosses can pick whoever they like and discard them whenever they like (job security? forget it).

*instant, made-up statistic for argument's sake.

 

[poster342002]

disagree; by coherent you actually mean 'one i agree with'; and, no, they dont, even if they dont convince you.

belboid, I think you've just driven your metaphorical car up the allegorical dead-end of Lost Argument Avenue.

 

[belboid]

and I think you've driven yours down Lostitcompletely Lane. So?

 

[treelover]

didn't a report come out recently saying the inexhaustible supply of labour from around the world now available to the bosses, completely changes traditional economic models of supply and demand in the workforces and the balance of forces between capital and labour.

On the OP: I do think Danny has a point , Woody Guthrie wrote about such 'organising' in his songs, the problem is the hard left is so weak yet just trys to shouts down any other viewpoints. Imo, a crisis is coming, how we respond to it needs to be debated

 

[revol68]

what sort of cunt see's an equivalence in crossing picket lines and being an immigrant.

I fucking dispair of these fucking boards at the moment.

 

[trashpony]

what sort of cunt see's an equivalence in crossing picket lines and being an immigrant.

I fucking dispair of these fucking boards at the moment.

I always hope that like attention seeking kids, if you ignore them, they'll go away.

 

[treelover]

Exactmundo, it can become 'a war against all' Imo, we are witnessing seismic shifts in how the world economy and the global labour market operates. I also think this is just the beginning of massive changes and upheavals: as left commentators such as Dave Osler* points out the left, except for perhaps in L/America has no answers, just 19th ideological outpourings. How the left responds to the coming crisis will define whether it is ever again taken seriously by the population or even its supporters/sympathisers.


*http://www.davidosler.com/

2. America..the bosses soon got wise to it and there's loads of stuff written about the thuggery of the Irish in particular towards ex-slaves in Boston and NYC during the mid 19th century, sponsored of course by the man.

 

[poster342002]

didn't a report come out recently saying the inexhaustible supply of labour from around the world now available to the bosses, completely changes traditional economic models of supply and demand in the workforces and the balance of forces between capital and labour.

My fear is that capital has finally succeeded in freeing itself of labour - or is about to complete such a move.

This was hitherto presumed impossible by marxists - hence I think it's part of the reason why they unable to come up with a logical plan of action in response to it. The situation is outside thier comprehension and point of reference - therefore, it simply "cannot" be happening.