Taxi drivers to block O’Connell St in protest escalation

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Didn't call you a fascist or anything else. You know nothing about me or my politics Bohs so stick your name calling up your hole. Cheers.



Actually that's exactly what you're saying

Translation: they have a right to intimidate and bully those who don't agree with them who don't wish to take part in their hissy fit and who maybe don't see a problem with their monopoly being broken.

Yeah all of what you said. Stick to the singing mate.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Yeah all of what you said. Stick to the singing mate.

Touché.

Not interested in challenging any of the substantive points I raised about their botched, unmarshalled protest or intimidation then?

I never made any points about that.
I was making general points on strike tactics i.e. that strike breakers are scabs and deserve to be outed as such. My knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular Taxi dispute is limited and I wasn't even getting into it until one post annoyed me.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

I never made any points about that.
I was making general points on strike tactics i.e. that strike breakers are scabs and deserve to be outed as such.

A person can't be a strike breaker unless they were on strike in the first place or are affiliated with a striking organisation.

I don't have to go on strike just because someone in the same line of business who happens to be affililiated to a union says so despite my not sharing that affiliation.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

My knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular Taxi dispute is limited and I wasn't even getting into it until one post annoyed me.

Then I don't think I'm unreasonable in asking why are you chucking your orb about in a thread titled "Taxi drivers to block O’Connell St in protest escalation"?

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

A person can't be a strike breaker unless they were on strike in the first place or are affiliated with a striking organisation.

That is incorrect. Strike breakers are rarely part of the union or on strike in the first place. Strike Breakers are any outside group whos actions directly affect the success of the strike. Scab labour can be classified as such. Other example of strike breaking is police intimidation or private "security" firms being brought in to move picketers (as happened in the Glass Bottle factory dispute a few years back in Ringsend.)

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Strike breaking is the practice of using intimidation, coercion, legislation, or even violence to break the support for a union strike or to force strikers back to work.

Non-legislative measures usually involve the use of non-unionized replacement workers, derogatively referred to by union members as "scabs". Union busting uses similar tactics to sap support for a union or disrupt a union organizing campaign.

In the early days of unionization, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was notorious for its use of violence against unionized workers. However, there are many examples where even police forces and National Guard units have been used to "keep the peace" during strikes, while using most of its force against the workers.

As for me "throwing my Orb about"; I originaly got in on this thread in reaction to the comment by drummerboy and never once said anything about the reasons for this strike or if they are right or wrong.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Then you're a scab to begin with. Its the unions job to look after its own.

You haven't a leg to stand on here BohsPartisan, I fully agree with Lionel Ritchie on this one. I do believe in this country that we have a choice in who we want to affiliate ourselves with in terms of unions, clubs etc. and by saying that they have to join up a certain union or else be rightfully physically intimidated by union members pushes you very close to extreme right politics.

Might I point out that in a different thread on socialism I listed one of the oiints that turns people off the socialist party is your picking up of whatever dispute will garner the party the next mornings headlines, and then to be as hard line about said cause as possible?

Originally Posted by jebus

You haven't a leg to stand on here BohsPartisan, I fully agree with Lionel Ritchie on this one. I do believe in this country that we have a choice in who we want to affiliate ourselves with in terms of unions, clubs etc. and by saying that they have to join up a certain union or else be rightfully physically intimidated by union members pushes you very close to extreme right politics.

Might I point out that in a different thread on socialism I listed one of the oiints that turns people off the socialist party is your picking up of whatever dispute will garner the party the next mornings headlines, and then to be as hard line about said cause as possible?

Ah Jebus welcome. You lost your last arguement so you had to jump in here to have a pop at me?

1. I haven't picked up on this dispute.
2. I believe people should have a choice about what the join or don't join.
3. I believe that people who cross a picket line are the lowest form of scum because they are aiding the employer/capitalist for their own greedy short term gain while putting other people's livelihoods in jeapordy.
Capíche?

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Strike Breakers are any outside group whos actions directly affect the success of the strike. Scab labour can be classified as such.

I'm not talking about any outside group. I'm talking about taxi drivers who aren't part of the unions concerned who chose to work rather than take part in a strike.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Other example of strike breaking is police intimidation or private "security" firms being brought in to move picketers (as happened in the Glass Bottle factory dispute a few years back in Ringsend.)
.

Irrelavent. There's no employer here looking to break a strike. These people are self employed.

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

I'm not talking about any outside group. I'm talking about taxi drivers who aren't part of the unions concerned who chose to work rather than take part in a strike.

Irrelavent. There's no employer here looking to break a strike. These people are self employed.

So the government/city council has no interest in breaking the strike?

On them not being part of the union, that makes them an outside group, I.E. not part of the union/not part of the strike. So they are strikebeakers/scabs as per the definition of same.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

3. I believe that people who cross a picket line are the lowest form of scum because they are aiding the employer/capitalist for their own greedy short term gain while putting other people's livelihoods in jeapordy.

Could you explain this one with reference to the Taxi dispute? Who is the capatilist out for greedy short term gain?

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Could you explain this one with reference to the Taxi dispute? Who is the capatilist out for greedy short term gain?

Sorry misunderstanding - The scab's greedy short term gain.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

So the government/city council has no interest in breaking the strike?.

Irrelevant. The government isn't forcing taxi drivers to work. They're choosing to.

I as a private citizen and member of the public have an interest in seeing the taxi drivers faced down, defeated, competed with and made efficient.

I as a private citizen and member of the public have an interest in obtaining the service I want, on my terms, when I want it and at a reasonable rate.

I as a private citizen and member of the public have a right to take my custom elsewhere when I'm not happy with the service being offered.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

On them not being part of the union, that makes them an outside group, I.E. not part of the union/not part of the strike. So they are strikebeakers/scabs as per the definition of same.

So now you're saying Union membership is mandatory? -in actuality and/or effect. If so who's union?

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

So now you're saying Union membership is mandatory? -in actuality and/or effect. If so who's union?

Never said that, just that if you impede the union then you have to be prepared to face the consequences of taking that action.

All your bluster about what is in your interest as a private citizen is nonsense. Basicly you are saying that it is in your interest that all other workers other than yourselves have their wages paushed down leaving you with the best of all possible worlds.

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Never said that, just that if you impede the union then you have to be prepared to face the consequences of taking that action.

All your bluster about what is in your interest as a private citizen is nonsense. Basicly you are saying that it is in your interest that all other workers other than yourselves have their wages paushed down leaving you with the best of all possible worlds.

Your swingin' blind now Bohs.

"If I impede the union"?!?! How many times do I have to say it? It's not my union and it's not the union of the hypothetical taxi driver I'm talking about.

Your "prepared to face the consequences" quip is chilling. It truly is a recipe for mob rule.

The rest of your post is laughable it's so ironically in tatters. Ask the people trapped in Dublin city center the other day who was putting their personal interests before everyone elses. Ask the ambulance driver ...in fact ask the poor fcuker in the back of the ambulance who the "I'm-All-Right-Jacks" in Dublin city center were the other day.

Ludicrous post.

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Your swingin' blind now Bohs.

"If I impede the union"

Your "prepared to face the consequences" quip is chilling. .

Good.

Bohs Partisan could you clarify something for me please. This is a genuine question and not an attack, I just am not clear in my understanding of where you stand.

Straight yes or no please.

Are you saying it is ok for strikers to break the laws of this state by using means of physical intimidation and force to achieve their goals?

Taxi drivers are self employed people who pay the local council 5k & they get a licence to drive a taxi under the regulations of the city council.

I find it hilarious that just because a minority of taxi drivers strike that the rest of them cannot earn a living.

It is no surprise that unionised taxi drivers are resisting any regulation of the taxi trade in Dublin. Can anyone explain why taxi drivers are not obliged to pick me up from the side of the road yet when i queue at the taxi rank i can't pick the nice clean taxi & skip the grotty clapped out 12 year old corolla?

Is not a bit of regulation required in that trade?

Originally Posted by Aberdonian Stu

Bohs Partisan could you clarify something for me please. This is a genuine question and not an attack, I just am not clear in my understanding of where you stand.

Straight yes or no please.

Are you saying it is ok for strikers to break the laws of this state by using means of physical intimidation and force to achieve their goals?

Yes.
For the simple reason that the laws of the state are designed to suit the class in who's interest the state rules. If workers' on strike always have to adhere by the rules then those in power fix the rules to suit themselves.

Well, at least you're honest.

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Well, at least you're honest.

Let me digress. I've pointed out previously how employers and the state use physical and psychological intimidation against striking workers. This is completely legal. Yet the laws are fixed so that workers cannot defend themselves against this intimidation or engage in counter intimidation. I consider it perfectly justifiable to break these laws.