NationStates Jolt Archive

The basic story is like this:

The student union in Israel has been on strike for about a month. Since the education system in Israel is 90% publicly funded, it means that the government is spending millions of shekels uselessly for every day of the strike – the lecturers are paid as per their collective bargaining agreement, but no studies occur and the usual campus commies break up any lectures that do occur.

So, to cut a very long story short, a (very small) bunch of students met up and decided we would meet up next to our campus, and march on it to protest the campus communists and their 30-day strike.

Some pictures:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/me.jpg
Me, looking stupid with a poster. The poster says “This is not the way, just let us study.”

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/marching.jpg

Us marching towards the University square


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/demonstration.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/demonstration2.jpg

two awful pictures of the demonstrations. There were really about a hundred of us.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/cameracrew.jpg

Our camera crew

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/angle.jpg
A different angle of the demonstration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/ladies.jpg

Nice ladies who were protesting with us

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/justasheep.jpg

Student union pro-strike activist. Her T-shirt actually says ‘I’m just another sheep’. They intended it as some form of humor, I guess.

Wait...students going on strike? WTF.

Here in the US, if the students went on strike, the profs would just fail them.

So why are they striking then?

The basic story is like this:
Student union pro-strike activist. Her T-shirt actually says ‘I’m just another sheep’. They intended it as some form of humor, I guess.[/i]

Or maybe as a statement of bitter irony?

"Screw you, come be a sheep like me!"

Power to the people!
Why the hell are they striking?

Why are they on striker?

your whole message is left redundant as long as there is that Israeli flag being waved

edit: how funky can your shoes be?

Why are they on striker?

That question is based on a false premise (that leftoid student unions need a reason to strike).

Good on you! Rather than just complaining about it you got up and did something! (No not meant as sarcasm or as an insult, I honestly mean it!)
Now, perhaps if you keep it up those dumbasses will get it through thier heads that not evreyone wants to fail.

Honestly, if I were a lecturer or a student who wanted to hold lecture, I'd just lock the classroom doors to keep the strikers out, and screen my students as they came in.

So why are they striking then?

because of expected tuition increases, i think

because of expected tuition increases, i think

Good for them, then.

because of expected tuition increases, i think

Boo-hoo. :rolleyes:

They can feel free to walk out, but don't disrupt other peoples education.

Goddamn, if students in the US rioted every time there was a tuition hike, there'd be a riot 365 days of the year, every year.

Honestly, if I were a lecturer or a student who wanted to hold lecture, I'd just lock the classroom doors to keep the strikers out, and screen my students as they came in.

as i understand it, the student unions already locked the doors with chains in some places, and the major associations of faculty are in solidarity with the student unions

Goddamn, if students in the US rioted every time there was a tuition hike, there'd be a riot 365 days of the year, every year.

well, until the state learned it's lesson and stopped forcing kids into massive debt to get an education, at least.

as i understand it, the student unions already locked the doors with chains in some places, and the major associations of faculty are in solidarity with the student unions

And the students and faculty who did not want to participate should not be inhibited from attending or teaching class. It's a violation of their basic human rights to decide when and how they want to work and study.

And the students and faculty who did not want to participate should not be inhibited from attending or teaching class.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs

Goddamn, if students in the US rioted every time there was a tuition hike, there'd be a riot 365 days of the year, every year.
Twice on Saturdays.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs

You never cease to amaze me.

You never cease to amaze me.

and you never cease to be a poster i've never heard of

who are you?

as i understand it, the student unions already locked the doors with chains in some places, and the major associations of faculty are in solidarity with the student unions

This is correct.

However, some professors are still holding lectures with varying degrees of success.

Under the regulations, if students arrive at the lecture ,the professor is bound to give the lecture. In practice... eh.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.



So you mean I should be forced to go along with your protest, and be bound to agree with your political opinion?

You can protest against the government, but nobody can protest against you?

Cuuuute.

well, until the state learned it's lesson and stopped forcing kids into massive debt to get an education, at least.

Do you have even the slightest idea why tuition hikes occur in US schools? It's because these schools are constantly improving the services they provide. Ohio State, for example, has seen continual tuition increases under President Holbrook, and at the same time, we've also seen radical improvements in the quality of the faculty, quality of the facilities and the quality of the students attending.

It's far more fair to charge the students more than to charge the average taxpayer more, because the students are using the service, whilst the average taxpayer isn't.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs

The students aren't going to school to play, they're going to school to learn.

And fuck strikers, worthless shitbags is all that they are.

However, some professors are still holding lectures with varying degrees of success.

which is a disgusting thing to do no?

And the students and faculty who did not want to participate should not be inhibited from attending or teaching class. It's a violation of their basic human rights to decide when and how they want to work and study.

i think you misunderstand the point of a strike. you want to cause maximum disruption so that things cannot continue until your demands are met. just cuz some rich kids don't care about tuition fee hikes cuz there parents can pay it all easily is no reason to let up in a striking situation.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs
I was under the impression that one only became a scab if they were brought in specifically as a counter measure against the strike. Hence, the metaphor of a blood clot that has formed over the wound that the strike is inflicting, or something.
Maybe I'm just too smart to be unionized labor.

which is a disgusting thing to do no?

Imagine that. Actually teaching students. The gall.

So you mean I should be forced to go along with your protest, and be bound to agree with your political opinion?

so your one of those guys who when the coal miners had a strike you went in and worked

Do you have even the slightest idea why tuition hikes occur in US schools? It's because these schools are constantly improving the services they provide.

if you have kids going into massive debt because of tuition fees the last thing you can do is increase the fee's

honestly tuition fee's should be going down not up, so that people can have a chance at getting you' know and education

It's far more fair to charge the students more than to charge the average taxpayer more, because the students are using the service, whilst the average taxpayer isn't.

oh God your not on of those "ban public schools" types are you?

i think you misunderstand the point of a strike. you want to cause maximum disruption so that thing cannot continue until your demands are met. ust cuz some rich kids don't care about tuition fee hikes cuz there parents can pay it all easily is no reason to let up in a striking situation.

Now you're creating a false dichotomy, not all strikers are poor and not all those opposed to the strike are wealthy. Not all those who want to continue to attend class are the children of the wealthy. Hell, I know that if the students at my university were to go on strike, I'd continue to attempt to attend class, and god knows I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you have even the slightest idea why tuition hikes occur in US schools? It's because these schools are constantly improving the services they provide. Ohio State, for example, has seen continual tuition increases under President Holbrook, and at the same time, we've also seen radical improvements in the quality of the faculty, quality of the facilities and the quality of the students attending.

It's far more fair to charge the students more than to charge the average taxpayer more, because the students are using the service, whilst the average taxpayer isn't.
if a university spends money on improvements that it's students (customers) cannot afford to pay for then they deserve to get disrupted.

which is a disgusting thing to do no?
No.

No.

Imagine that. Actually teaching students. The gall.

yeah fuck the poor as long as my daddy pays for everything I don't care :rolleyes:

ust cuz some rich kids don't care about tuition fee hikes cuz there parents can pay it all easily is no reason to let up in a striking situation

I'm not rich. My mother works in manual labor - carries the mail, on foot - and my father is a night guard. Me, I work to help pay the bills - not full-time, but still. I translate, I do guard jobs, and at one point I cleaned the streets and worked at a soap factory to help pay the tuition.

A lot of the stupid campus communist demanding tuition cuts are richer then me.

THey oppose, among other things, graduated tuition, whereby they would have to pay more then me.

Yeah, real champions of the working class.

Now you're creating a false dichotomy, not all strikers are poor and not all those opposed to the strike are wealthy. Not all those who want to continue to attend class are the children of the wealthy. Hell, I know that if the students at my university were to go on strike, I'd continue to attempt to attend class, and god knows I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not rich. My mother works in manual labor - carries the mail, on foot - and my father is a night guard. Me, I work to help pay the bills - not full-time, but still. I translate, I do guard jobs, and at one point I cleaned the streets and worked at a soap factory to help pay the tuition.

So don't generalize.


i'm willing to bet the remainder of my overdraft that the majority of the people who do not care about the tuition fee increase are wealthy enough to afford it. there may be some people like you who will continue to pay through the nose for the priviledge of being an impoverished graduate but i think you will be in the minority.

yeah fuck the poor as long as my daddy pays for everything I don't care :rolleyes:
If you're going to quote me, don't be so presumptuous as to speak for me. You know nothing of how I finance my education, so you will only end up making ignorant assumptions.

so your one of those guys who when the coal miners had a strike you went in and worked

Probably, although I'm not union, never have been union, and likely will never be union.



if you have kids going into massive debt because of tuition fees the last thing you can do is increase the fee's

honestly tuition fee's should be going down not up, so that people can have a chance at getting you' know and education

Getting a good education requires financial sacrifices. You have to put off your career for an extended period of time, and go into debt to pay for it, but it's worth it.

It's a trade off.


oh God your not on of those "ban public schools" types are you?

God no, I'm all for improving and increasing funding for K-12 education, and continuing to subsidize loans and grants to low-income college students. A healthy education

If you're going to quote me, don't be so presumptuous as to speak for me.

so why exactly are you for breaking a strike?

if a university spends money on improvements that it's students (customers) cannot afford to pay for then they deserve to get disrupted.

God no.

I want the best education my university can provide me as possible, and if that means I have to pay more, so be it. I'm not going to settle for mediocrity because some whiner needs to take out another loan.

I know that as far as I'm concerned, to attend Ohio State I sold my car, earned several thousand dollars in scholarships, earned 45 hours of college credit in high school, take the maximum course load and work a twenty hour a week job. My parents usually foot me a portion each quarter to cover the remainder.

i'm willing to bet the remainder of my overdraft that the majority of the people who do not care about the tuition fee increase are wealthy enough to afford it. there may be some people like you who will continue to pay through the nose for the priviledge of being an impoverished graduate but i think you will be in the minority.

You do realize there is not even going to be a tuition hike involved, yes?

The tuition is not going to be raised, for anybody, to a level higher then 10,000 NIS.

That's what I *already* pay.

so why exactly are you for breaking a strike?
Your position was that it's disgusting for a lecturer to lecture in spite of a strike. I say it isn't, because I am there to learn. I've paid for the service and I expect it to be delivered.

as i understand it, the student unions already locked the doors with chains in some places, and the major associations of faculty are in solidarity with the student unions

That is what bolt cutters are for.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs

Bollocks. The fact that some commie malcontents are having a hissy fit should not ruin anyone else's education. The pinko bastards have a right to abstain, but they have no right to impose themselves on others.

The "scabs" as you dehumanise them are simply people who want to learn.

which is a disgusting thing to do no?

No. The professors are there to teach, the students to learn. No one has the right to disrupt them, no matter how self-righteous and arrogant they are.

i think you misunderstand the point of a strike. you want to cause maximum disruption so that thing cannot continue until your demands are met.

I don't know about him, but I don't really care about the facile rationalisations of these strikers.

If that is the point of the strike, then the strike is illigitimate. These idiots have the right to protect, and they have the right to abstain from classes, but they have no right whatsoever to disrupt others going about their entirely lawful, and reasonable business.

That has been the problem with unions, they blither on and on about their rights, and violate the rights of anyone who opposes them.

The problem, of course, is that the student unions here are violent.

They've attacked police, campus security, and lecturers, and threatened people with violence on repeated occasions - but hey, who cares? After all, them's just dirty scabs anyway

Anyways, calling someone a scab is just a way that makes it easier for union members to dehumanize those who disagree with them, and engage in organized crime style harassment and violence against them.

Probably

...you do what you just said right

Getting a good education requires financial sacrifices. You have to put off your career for an extended period of time, and go into debt to pay for it, but it's worth it.

unfortunately some people can' afford to make financial sacrifices and dive into even more debt

God no, I'm all for improving and increasing funding for K-12 education, and continuing to subsidize loans and grants to low-income college students. A healthy education

generally that happens before you jack up tuition and usually you would of made sure its kosher with the students first

God no.

I want the best education my university can provide me as possible, and if that means I have to pay more, so be it. I'm not going to settle for mediocrity because some whiner needs to take out another loan.

I know that as far as I'm concerned, to attend Ohio State I sold my car, earned several thousand dollars in scholarships, earned 45 hours of college credit in high school, take the maximum course load and work a twenty hour a week job. My parents usually foot me a portion each quarter to cover the remainder.

you don't think being pushed into further debt is something to complain about? people go to prison for being too far in debt, people kill themselves over it.

Are you implying thats a bad thing?

Just for the record, I will cross any picket line I feel like crossing, and woe betide any union thug who tries to stop me.

*round of applause*

The problem, of course, is that the student unions here are violent.

They've attacked police, campus security, and lecturers, and threatened people with violence on repeated occasions - but hey, who cares? After all, them's just dirty scabs anyway

These student unions sound my like leftist gangs than anything.

so your one of those guys who when the coal miners had a strike you went in and worked

Are you implying thats a bad thing?

Just for the record, I will cross any picket line I feel like crossing, and woe betide any union thug who tries to stop me.

you don't think being pushed into further debt is something to complain about? people go to prison for being too far in debt, people kill themselves over it.



You do realize we're talking about a tuition hike of $400 per year here, yes?

You do realize there is not even going to be a tuition hike involved, yes?

The tuition is not going to be raised, for anybody, to a level higher then 10,000 NIS.

That's what I *already* pay.

so, it's not going to be raised for you, but it will for others, and you think those others don't have a legitimate complaint?

i think you misunderstand the point of a strike. you want to cause maximum disruption so that things cannot continue until your demands are met. just cuz some rich kids don't care about tuition fee hikes cuz there parents can pay it all easily is no reason to let up in a striking situation.
No, I think you misunderstand. So, let's review.

Strikes are used in a workplace when the union of workers believes they are not being offered what their labor is worth, so when negotiations break down they, by mutual agreement, refuse to work until an equitable solution is found. While often seen as socialistic in nature there is a capitalistic logic to this: labor is essentially a service - skill and time sold for money. If someone's offer to you for your time and skill is lower than you believe it is worth, you don't have to sell it to them. In most situations this is demonstrated by quitting the job, or not taking it to begin with, however in unionized workplaces there is a collective contract where the union members work under x terms for y years, and negotiate collectively when the contract expires.

"Scabs", as the name suggests, are replacement workers brought in to work instead, during the strike. There's nothing wrong with this, either - at least, unless you think it's wrong to, when you are buying a product or service, shop around for the best price. If the union refuses to work for x dollars an hour, but other people will, it makes all the sense in the world to hire them instead. The fact the union has priced itself out of the market is their own problem.

Now let's look at the example of this student union in Israel. Students are not paid for their time and skill... they are paying money in order to be taught skills that they can later sell. It is to their benefit to do so. Instead of selling a service, they are purchasing one. This is a fundamental difference that completely destroys any logical reasoning or moral authority behind a strike action. Again, if someone is charging you too much for a service you want to buy, you go elsewhere, where it's available for cheaper. If you can't get it for cheaper, you save up or get a loan or do without. Like normal people.

A student strike is analagous to me going over to a store, chaining their doors shut, and getting a bunch of goons to strike and prevent them from opening their doors until they lower their prices to what I want to pay. There's no logic or ethic behind such an action and the store's proprietor would be more than justified in calling the police and having them force me and my goons to disperse. If you can't see anything wrong with striking buyers, then I can't help you.

A "scab" in this context would be as useless as buying carbon credits or paying someone to go on a diet for me. Why would anyone get scabs in this situation? Would a school pay people just to fill seats in classrooms? Of course not. The profs seem to be 'in solidarity' anyway, which let's face it, is just a euphemism for "Well hey, free vacation!" Students who want to learn are not scabs, they're simply people willing to pay for the service at the price asked. They're the real victims here - it's the responsible men and women who are thinking about their future who get the shaft from a radical union and a lazy, corrupt faculty.

you don't think being pushed into further debt is something to complain about? people go to prison for being too far in debt, people kill themselves over it.

Bull.

Prison and suicide because of debt are incredibly rare, they are the random outliers.

Come on, the only reason you protested was for the chicks, admit it.

The problem, of course, is that the student unions here are violent.

oh noez allot of people get pissed off when guys try to undermine there protest!

Are you implying thats a bad thing?

well lets see:


coal miners who work hard and do a vital job for already miserable pay

pay cut miners find it harder to put bread on table

unions calls for strike as negotiations go nowhere

you go in undermine there whole strike and thus force them to work for even less

You do realize we're talking about a tuition hike of $400 per year here, yes?

you don't think that's a lot of money?

let me ask you, if your taxes went up by that much in a year would you not be angry?

*snip*
Well said, and nice analysis. :)

No, I think you misunderstand. So, let's review.



Very good job.

oh noez allot of people get pissed off when guys try to undermine there protest!


That's no excuse to harass and assault them.

No, I think you misunderstand. So, let's review.

Strikes are used in a workplace when the union of workers believes they are not being offered what their labor is worth, so when negotiations break down they, by mutual agreement, refuse to work until an equitable solution is found. While often seen as socialistic in nature there is a capitalistic logic to this: labor is essentially a service - skill and time sold for money. If someone's offer to you for your time and skill is lower than you believe it is worth, you don't have to sell it to them. In most situations this is demonstrated by quitting the job, or not taking it to begin with, however in unionized workplaces there is a collective contract where the union members work under x terms for y years, and negotiate collectively when the contract expires.

"Scabs", as the name suggests, are replacement workers brought in to work instead, during the strike. There's nothing wrong with this, either - at least, unless you think it's wrong to, when you are buying a product or service, shop around for the best price. If the union refuses to work for x dollars an hour, but other people will, it makes all the sense in the world to hire them instead. The fact the union has priced itself out of the market is their own problem.

Now let's look at the example of this student union in Israel. Students are not paid for their time and skill... they are paying money in order to be taught skills that they can later sell. It is to their benefit to do so. Instead of selling a service, they are purchasing one. This is a fundamental difference that completely destroys any logical reasoning or moral authority behind a strike action. Again, if someone is charging you too much for a service you want to buy, you go elsewhere, where it's available for cheaper. If you can't get it for cheaper, you save up or get a loan or do without. Like normal people.

A student strike is analagous to me going over to a store, chaining their doors shut, and getting a bunch of goons to strike and prevent them from opening their doors until they lower their prices to what I want to pay. There's no logic or ethic behind such an action and the store's proprietor would be more than justified in calling the police and having them force me and my goons to disperse. If you can't see anything wrong with striking buyers, then I can't help you.

A "scab" in this context would be as useless as buying carbon credits or paying someone to go on a diet for me. Why would anyone get scabs in this situation? Would a school pay people just to fill seats in classrooms? Of course not. The profs seem to be 'in solidarity' anyway, which let's face it, is just a euphemism for "Well hey, free vacation!" Students who want to learn are not scabs, they're simply people willing to pay for the service at the price asked. They're the real victims here - it's the responsible men and women who are thinking about their future who get the shaft from a radical union and a lazy, corrupt faculty.
that's all fine and dandy. but education is not simply a product it's a right. pricing poorer students out of the right to an education is criminal.

well lets see:

1. coal miners who work hard and do a vital job for already miserable pay
2. pay cut miners find it harder to put bread on table
3. unions calls for strike as negotiations go nowhere
4. you go in undermine there whole strike and thus force them to work for even less

Why should I look out for the interests of the union, when they dehumanise me for looking out for me and my family (by taking a job), when they threaten, intimidate, and even murder people for doing nothing more than trying to get by.

What exactly do I owe someone who would dehumanise me by calling me a scab?

Also consider that if I could only get a job at a rate lower than the union, then that means that the union has been actively keeping me out of work, because I am unemployable at the union rate.

So, what the hell do I owe such people?

(Hint: The answer begins with "S", and ends with "All")

that's all fine and dandy. but education is not simply a product it's a right. pricing poorer students out of the right to an education is criminal.

Unlimited education is not a right,only to a certain level is education a right.

Anyways, under your logic, these protesters are denying the students who wish to carry on their right to an education by harassing and assaulting them.

that's all fine and dandy. but education is not simply a product it's a right. pricing poorer students out of the right to an education is criminal.

No, its a product. The rights of the students who want to learn have been violated by the strikers (by preventing them getting what they have paid for).

oh noez allot of people get pissed off when guys try to undermine there protest!

You are doing nothing more than rationalising thuggery. That is disgusting.

Unlimited education is not a right,only to a certain level is education a right.

education to level where you can get any job you are capable of is a right. education for kicks i not.

oh noez allot of people get pissed off when guys try to undermine there protest!




So it's legitimate to physically attack people who disagree with you since hey, they're undermining your protest?

I'm all for the strike. The people who control the money flow from universities need to understand that not everyone is an upper-crust trust fund baby! It needs to be made known that college should not be considered a business! It is a place for people to enrich their lives. and it is slowly turning into a club, where only the rich can enter. As a college student struggling with my funding as is, I would be disgusted and outraged at this kind of insensitive strong armed tactics. Good for the strikers! and if you think you are making yourself any more noble by fighting them, think again. The only thing you are fighting is THEIR RIGHT TO FREE PROTEST OF INJUSTICE! and for that you disgust me.:upyours:

education to level where you can get any job you are capable of is a right. education for kicks i not.

A baseline of education is a right, because government services are not tailored to potential, but to uniform delivery. Everyone gets x amount covered by the government, and not a minute more.

that's all fine and dandy. but education is not simply a product it's a right. pricing poorer students out of the right to an education is criminal.
The government of Israel already covers 88% of the cost of education - and this is a relatively affluent First World country. You might have a point if Israel was a poor country and its government was expecting students to shoulder the full cost themselves. It's not, and they're not, so don't pretend that anyone's being exploited here.

The fact that there are numerous countries where students pay a much higher portion of their educational costs, yet have higher rates of college enrollment and graduation, would suggest that the argument that the Israeli government is driving these students into destitution and poverty by wanting to foot less of the bill, is fallacious at best, and ludicrous at worst.

A baseline of education is a right, because government services are not tailored to potential, but to uniform delivery. Everyone gets x amount covered by the government, and not a minute more.

seems like you draw your baseline considerably lower than i do. that might be nice for you, just it sucks for anyone who can't afford what you can, which is the majority of the people in your country or in any country.

The government of Israel already covers 88% of the cost of education - and this is a relatively affluent First World country. You might have a point if Israel was a poor country and its government was expecting students to shoulder the full cost themselves. It's not, and they're not, so don't pretend that anyone's being exploited here.

The fact that there are numerous countries where students pay a much higher portion of their educational costs, yet have higher rates of college enrollment and graduation, would suggest that the argument that the Israeli government is driving these students into destitution and poverty by wanting to foot less of the bill, is fallacious at best, and ludicrous at worst.

It's just a bunch of students who want to have more beer money. I know their motivations: I'm a student too.

if someone is charging you too much for a service you want to buy, you go elsewhere, where it's available for cheaper. If you can't get it for cheaper, you save up or get a loan or do without. Like normal people.

you could apply that logic to when Bolivia had its water monopolized, unfortunately people tend to get pissed off when they can't afford things especially things people need like a requirement to get a job or silly things like class mobility

That's no excuse to harass and assault them.

unfortunately when your angry you act differently

No, its a product. The rights of the students who want to learn have been violated by the strikers (by preventing them getting what they have paid for).

state education isn't a product

Why should I look out for the interests of the union, when they dehumanise me for looking out for me and my family (by taking a job), when they threaten, intimidate, and even murder people for doing nothing more than trying to get by.

union workers have family's to feed too and unlike you it seems don't like to live in poverty because there is unemployment

state education isn't a product
Anything that is produced is by definition a product...

seems like you draw your baseline considerably lower than i do. that might be nice for you, just it sucks for anyone who can't afford what you can, which is the majority of the people in your country or in any country.

I draw my line at 12th year, or the national equivalent (13th year in some countries). At that point, a student is no longer a minor, and is responsible for themselves.

The basic story is like this:

The student union in Israel has been on strike for about a month. Since the education system in Israel is 90% publicly funded, it means that the government is spending millions of shekels uselessly for every day of the strike – the lecturers are paid as per their collective bargaining agreement, but no studies occur and the usual campus commies break up any lectures that do occur.

So, to cut a very long story short, a (very small) bunch of students met up and decided we would meet up next to our campus, and march on it to protest the campus communists and their 30-day strike.

Some pictures:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/me.jpg
Me, looking stupid with a poster. The poster says “This is not the way, just let us study.”

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/marching.jpg

Us marching towards the University square


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/demonstration.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/demonstration2.jpg

two awful pictures of the demonstrations. There were really about a hundred of us.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/cameracrew.jpg

Our camera crew

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/angle.jpg
A different angle of the demonstration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/ladies.jpg

Nice ladies who were protesting with us

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/justasheep.jpg

Student union pro-strike activist. Her T-shirt actually says ‘I’m just another sheep’. They intended it as some form of humor, I guess.

Get a job you smelly hippies!

you could apply that logic to when Bolivia had its water monopolized, unfortunately people tend to get pissed off when they can't afford things especially things people need like a requirement to get a job or silly things like class mobility
Interesting that Israel's education system is a state monopoly. I appreciate your thoughtful argument in favor of privatization and competition in the Israeli university system.

Like I said. 88% of their tuition is paid by the government. You can't honestly argue that they're being driven to poverty here.

unfortunately when your angry you act differently



Bullshit.

That would excuse nothing in a court of law.

Being insane is an excuse, being angry is not an excuse.

state education isn't a product

It is, it is just one that is provided/subsidised by the state on terms the state defines.

union workers have family's to feed too and unlike you it seems don't like to live in poverty because there is unemployment

You missed the point. What do I owe to people who would insist that I can't have a job? Why should I live in unemployment and poverty for their sake? Why should I not take every opportunity I can find, regardless of how it affects them?

I would only be treating them as they have treated me.

You haven't answered the question I asked: What do I, or any scab, owe to unions that I should remained unemployed for their sake?

Talking about their families isn't an answer, all that says is that it would be nice if the union workers made more money. It confers no obligation on me to sacrifice for their sake.

I draw my line at 12th year, or the national equivalent (13th year in some countries). At that point, a student is no longer a minor, and is responsible for themselves.

your line is nonsensical in the modern context

your line is nonsensical in the modern context

No, your line is nonsensical, as it has no legal ties whatsoever, just this bullshit claim of "need".

The government of Israel already covers 88% of the cost of education - and this is a relatively affluent First World country.

education should be getting cheaper not more expensive since the point is education shouldn't be a thing that you have to shell out allot of money for, especially if its public

The government of Israel already covers 88% of the cost of education - and this is a relatively affluent First World country. You might have a point if Israel was a poor country and its government was expecting students to shoulder the full cost themselves. It's not, and they're not, so don't pretend that anyone's being exploited here.

The fact that there are numerous countries where students pay a much higher portion of their educational costs, yet have higher rates of college enrollment and graduation, would suggest that the argument that the Israeli government is driving these students into destitution and poverty by wanting to foot less of the bill, is fallacious at best, and ludicrous at worst.

well in that case i suspect that there is more to this protest than is being reported.

besides, i think a flat 88% rate paid by the government is stupid. there should be a graded level of grants paid to the students to go towards their tuition fees and other costs incurred according to their means. it's a system that works very well where i am from, it does mean that i am paying over 10 grand a year for my education but it also means that my friends who couldn't afford that or anything close to that still got to go to university free of charge.

unfortunately when your angry you act differently

So, what you're saying is that when I get pissed off, I have the right to commit assault and battery.

This'll be fun.

There'll be a few packed ER's tonight!

education should be getting cheaper not more expensive since the point is education shouldn't be a thing that you have to shell out allot of money for, especially if its public

Education should be getting cheaper if people are getting poorer, not constantly getting cheaper. Especially when factoring in the effects of inflation, recognizing that education should be expected to increase in total dollars over time..

Strikes are used in a workplace when the union of workers believes they are not being offered what their labor is worth, so when negotiations break down they, by mutual agreement, refuse to work until an equitable solution is found.

rent strike, fare strike, general strike, etc.
your notion of strikes is incomplete.

education should be getting cheaper not more expensive since the point is education shouldn't be a thing that you have to shell out allot of money for, especially if its public

You do realize they're not even opposing a hike?

They're opposing the existence of a committee that may or may not in the future recomment a hike of, at maximum, $600 per year, and it's likely not going to be more then $200, really.

Realize this.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER YEAR.

rent strike, fare strike, general strike, etc.
your notion of strikes is incomplete.

And only one type is justified. Wage strike.

No, your line is nonsensical, as it has no legal ties whatsoever, just this bullshit claim of "need".

legal has fuck-all to do with anything. it's an ought claim, not an is. your ought claim for where free education should end is arbitrary and irrelevant to any rational justification for education.

You do realize they're not even opposing a hike?

They're opposing the existence of a committee that may or may not in the future recomment a hike of, at maximum, $600 per year, and it's likely not going to be more then $200, really.

Realize this.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER YEAR.

Bloody hell, is that all?!

If I were nice, I'd say "lets bung in a few bucks so they shut their pieholes"

That would excuse nothing in a court of law.

what crazy land do you live in :confused:

It is, it is just one that is provided/subsidised by the state on terms the state defines.

on that logic water, heating and food are also products that we can jack up and to hell those who get into debt because of it

Talking about their families isn't an answer, all that says is that it would be nice if the union workers made more money. It confers no obligation on me to sacrifice for their sake.

*sigh* you fell asleep when your class did lessons on the industrial revolution didn't you

You do realize they're not even opposing a hike?

They're opposing the existence of a committee that may or may not in the future recomment a hike of, at maximum, $600 per year, and it's likely not going to be more then $200, really.

Realize this.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER YEAR.

otherwise known as 'making a stand on principle'

You do realize they're not even opposing a hike?

They're opposing the existence of a committee that may or may not in the future recomment a hike of, at maximum, $600 per year, and it's likely not going to be more then $200, really.

Realize this.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER YEAR.

that's a lot of money to most people

Bloody hell, is that all?!

If I were nice, I'd say "lets bung in a few bucks so they shut their pieholes"

The government is trying that.

The last offer they did to the students was to freeze tuition for the next three years, give everybody studying this year a 20% tuition cut, AND throw in 1.25 billion shekels into the higher education budget, and they are STILL WHINING.

that's a lot of money to most people

...in what universe?

No, your line is nonsensical, as it has no legal ties whatsoever, just this bullshit claim of "need".

the most a high-school or 6th form education can get you these days is a job as an office juniour.

...in what universe?

this one

legal has fuck-all to do with anything. it's an ought claim, not an is. your ought claim for where free education should end is arbitrary and irrelevant to any rational justification for education.

Your claim has fuck all to do with it. I tie my claim to existing legal precedent of age (I do live in a common law country, where legal precedent means a lot, buddo) and the concept that all students should be afforded an equal amount of education. That's my rational justification, yours is some bullshit about "need" and a claim that the state can magically comprehend where the appropriate amount of education for any individual ends.

Allanea is already paying the maximum amount of tuition, even under the proposed new system, which is 10,000 NIS (new israeli shekels) per year. At current exchange rates that is about US$2500. Nobody's suffering here, period.

Call to Power, do you actually know where the money comes from to pay for government services? Do you honestly believe a "free" education is actually free? It comes from taxes. Someone has to pay for it, and the someone is everyone, most of whom are not using the service.

If anything, post-secondary education is getting - and will continue to get - more expensive, and there's a very good reason why. More and more technology is required to teach effectively nowadays, and professors need to be paid more, so that they'll keep teaching, instead of doing in the more lucrative private sector. Buildings and campuses continually need to be maintained and upgraded, and students demand more in terms of facilities, services, and quality of education every year. And that's just to stay average - a school needs to go the extra mile for years on end to set itself apart from the pack as a prestigious place to learn. Your average state uni or Ivy League school in the US operates on a budget of billions of dollars - sometimes tens of billions. Your tuition may be expensive, but if you shopped around and researched before applying, you are getting what you paid for.

Now. Is someone going to give me a challenge here? Or am I just to keep swatting pithy one-liners?

the most a high-school or 6th form education can get you these days is a job as an office juniour.

*hides his job*

the most a high-school or 6th form education can get you these days is a job as an office juniour.

That's why it's up to the individual to continue to invest in themselves.

*sigh* you fell asleep when your class did lessons on the industrial revolution didn't you

Are you really pushing the old line about how only unions could make things better?

Lets look at that argument logically. A union is simply a cartel, a consortium of sellers coming together to increase prices and reduce supply.

Now, it hardly needs to be said that messing around with prices has an effect on demand.

I will tell you what improved conditions for workers, increased productivity (which is what the industrial revolution made possible), it meant that a worker's labour produced more (per unit of labour), and that there were more products available in general.

Of course, you haven't actually answered the question of what I owe personally to other unions here and now.

I will put it simply, you can spout all this rhetoric you like, but the union's effect on a scab (before he is hired) is to freeze him out of a job. I hardly call that "improving the lot of the workers".

If anything, post-secondary education is getting - and will continue to get - more expensive, and there's a very good reason why. More and more technology is required to teach effectively nowadays, and professors need to be paid more, so that they'll keep teaching, instead of doing in the more lucrative private sector. Buildings and campuses continually need to be maintained and upgraded, and students demand more in terms of facilities, services, and quality of education every year. And that's just to stay average - a school needs to go the extra mile for years on end to set itself apart from the pack as a prestigious place to learn. Your average state uni or Ivy League school in the US operates on a budget of billions of dollars - sometimes tens of billions. Your tuition may be expensive, but if you shopped around and researched before applying, you are getting what you paid for.



Quoted for being the MOTHERFUCKING TRUTH.

So, what you're saying is that when I get pissed off, I have the right to commit assault and battery.

yeah try it commit murder in blind rage and you will get a few years off

Education should be getting cheaper if people are getting poorer, not constantly getting cheaper.

no essentials should always be getting cheaper unless there is major economic shut down the money going to education will be going up as Governments generally work in percents

They're opposing the existence of a committee that may or may not in the future recomment a hike of, at maximum, $600 per year, and it's likely not going to be more then $200, really.

there shouldn't even be a committee on this, if your school is looking for money its should look to the government that is suppose to be funding it

on that logic water, heating and food are also products that we can jack up and to hell those who get into debt because of it

They are products, but why is it that I don't pay thousands for water, and millions for food? Quite possibly because competition helps to keep prices low, and jacking up prices too much tends to put people off.

Of course, when you're a statutory monopoly (like state education), that isn't something you have to worry about.

yeah try it commit murder in blind rage and you will get a few years off

Make up your damned mind. First you rationalise thuggery, now you don't. Which is it to be?

no essentials should always be getting cheaper unless there is major economic shut down the money going to education will be going up as Governments generally work in percents

Quoted because of the abject ignorance of economics displayed. The prices of the essential things I use (food, water, electricity, fuel) flucuate according to supply and demand.

For the umpteenth time!

The students are not protesting a bleeping pay hike. They are protesting the existence of a committee discussing the future of higher educatrion in general, which also may recommend a pay hike.

Note 'recommend' there.

Allanea is already paying the maximum amount of tuition, even under the proposed new system, which is 10,000 NIS (new israeli shekels) per year. At current exchange rates that is about US$2500. Nobody's suffering here, period.

Call to Power, do you actually know where the money comes from to pay for government services? Do you honestly believe a "free" education is actually free? It comes from taxes. Someone has to pay for it, and the someone is everyone, most of whom are not using the service.

If anything, post-secondary education is getting - and will continue to get - more expensive, and there's a very good reason why. More and more technology is required to teach effectively nowadays, and professors need to be paid more, so that they'll keep teaching, instead of doing in the more lucrative private sector. Buildings and campuses continually need to be maintained and upgraded, and students demand more in terms of facilities, services, and quality of education every year. And that's just to stay average - a school needs to go the extra mile for years on end to set itself apart from the pack as a prestigious place to learn. Your average state uni or Ivy League school in the US operates on a budget of billions of dollars - sometimes tens of billions. Your tuition may be expensive, but if you shopped around and researched before applying, you are getting what you paid for.

Now. Is someone going to give me a challenge here? Or am I just to keep swatting pithy one-liners?
taxes aren't only for the services you are using right now, the are an investment in the future of your country. if you are not using a university right now that is no reason not to pay taxes for them. you will probably have kids in the future who will probably very much like to go to university. and even if you don't have kids many others will, and those kids will come out of university and be designing your shopping malls, your road networks, your rail networks, they'll be running your local businesses and your national ones etc. etc. to argue against taxes in this contest is short-sighted in the extreme.

That's why it's up to the individual to continue to invest in themselves.

so you think it's reasonable that someone should have to work full time for 10 years to save up for a university education that they won't then complete until their mid-30s at which point those that could afford to have their parents pay for their education are already half way through their careers? yeah, that's productive.

so you think it's reasonable that someone should have to work full time for 10 years to save up for a university education that they won't then complete until their mid-30s at which point those that could afford to have their parents pay for their education are already half way through their careers? yeah, that's productive.


Or they could get loans. Or they could get needs-based scholarships, which are readily available.

Remember - 37% of Americans have higher education - more then any other nation in the world except Canada.

taxes aren't only for the services you are using right now, the are an investment in the future of your country.

You're assuming more public funding = better higher education system.

on that logic water, heating and food are also products that we can jack up and to hell those who get into debt because of it
Why yes. Yes they are. Looks like it's time for more Economics 101. These are products that are provided on a private basis, and competition serves to limit greed. Let's say for the sake of argument it costs $1 to produce a bushel of apples. Let's also say you grow apples, and you've been happily selling your apples for $2 and everyone's happy. But then you and your apple-farmer friends all get together and go, "Let's push the price of apples up to $5. More money for us, and everyone still has to buy our apples, mwahahahah."

Well, okay. But people aren't stupid. Assuming they don't just switch to peaches, for a while you'll make money and people will grumble. But then I, the observant entrepreneur, see the disparity. I buy a few acres of land and some trees and I start making my apples for $1 and selling them for $1.50, still a very healthy profit. Well, in very short order I'm shipping apples all over the country to all the people who used to buy from you, and you, my friend, are bankrupt.

This is how capitalism works, and how the free market keeps prices down. Capitalism trumps the government every time - witness the example of Microsoft. Microsoft engaged in what amounts to 'bundling' by including its web browser free with its operating system. They got slapped for it, for years, by governments around the world... and nothing changed. (This was silly - there's nothing wrong with bundling. Would you complain to the government if McDonald's included fries with your hamburger? Nobody's making you eat the fries.) But then the nice people at Mozilla made a better product, Firefox, and Explorer's market share is in free-fall. The free market had the effect that years of government fines and litigation could not.

Or they could get loans. Or they could get needs-based scholarships, which are readily available.

Remember - 37% of Americans have higher education - more then any other nation in the world except Canada.

scholarships are contingent on certain achievements. that puts higher criteria for entry into higher education on poorer prospective students than it does on those who don't need a scholarship. that is not a reasonable way to run an education system.

and i've already talked about loans and debt so i'll ignore your fist suggestion.

You're assuming more public funding = better higher education system.

it shouldn't matter where the money comes from, it's how the school uses it that matters.

so you think it's reasonable that someone should have to work full time for 10 years to save up for a university education that they won't then complete until their mid-30s at which point those that could afford to have their parents pay for their education are already half way through their careers? yeah, that's productive.

Which is why I advocate a subsidized loan plan for needy students, so they can pay for their education once they are in a better social position.

Call to Power, do you actually know where the money comes from to pay for government services? Do you honestly believe a "free" education is actually free? It comes from taxes. Someone has to pay for it, and the someone is everyone, most of whom are not using the service.

do you somehow miss that education pays for itself or that class mobility is fairly important :confused:

Now. Is someone going to give me a challenge here? Or am I just to keep swatting pithy one-liners?

*posts massive paragraph with only one point in it*

I will tell you what improved conditions for workers, increased productivity (which is what the industrial revolution made possible), it meant that a worker's labour produced more (per unit of labour), and that there were more products available in general.

weird coincidence that it took political instability and mass strikes for this to happen isn't it?

I will put it simply, you can spout all this rhetoric you like, but the union's effect on a scab (before he is hired) is to freeze him out of a job.

weird because thats exactly what a scab does to the people working there

They are products, but why is it that I don't pay thousands for water, and millions for food? Quite possibly because competition helps to keep prices low, and jacking up prices too much tends to put people off.

unless the companies are in silent orchestration: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJNSQQN

Why yes. Yes they are. Looks like it's time for more Economics 101. These are products that are provided on a private basis, and competition serves to limit greed.

unless..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis)

Which is why I advocate a subsidized loan plan for needy students, so they can pay for their education once they are in a better social position.

that's very progressive of you.

unless..... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis)

Supply turbulence is to be expected in newly deregulated fields, which is why they should have never been regulated in the first place.

do you somehow miss that education pays for itself or that class mobility is fairly important :confused:

...

*posts massive paragraph with only one point in it*
Education pays for itself, yes - for the student. If anything, you've proven my point that there's nothing wrong with people paying their own tuition. This happens in plenty of countries and yet - amazing! - people still do it! It must be worth it!

weird because thats exactly what a scab does to the people working there
He sure does - if you think that I'm doing Lexus harm by buying a Nissan instead, when a Nissan is all I need.

unless the companies are in silent orchestration: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJNSQQN
Your link actually fails to support - or even mention - your point.

that's very progressive of you.

It is...I'm usually opposed to the state spending money in this fashion. Heck, I'd probably freeze the amount owed in the loans, so as to negate the effects of inflation, and make the interest free grace period a full decade after graduation.

Alright...I've officially blown off the steam that needed blown off. I'm going to go study with some Dogfishead 90 Minute IPA, this policy paper ain't gonna write itself, you know.

It is...I'm usually opposed to the state spending money in this fashion. Heck, I'd probably freeze the amount owed in the loans, so as to negate the effects of inflation, and make the interest free grace period a full decade after graduation.
In fairness, I think the taxpayer deserves to get their money back, so I'd peg interest just a hair above inflation. In recent years, that's 1-2%, so it's far below the rates on a bank loan, or even the rates on just about any state-run student loan program out there. The reason I'd put it slightly little above is to cover administrative costs.

Do you honestly believe a "free" education is actually free? It comes from taxes. Someone has to pay for it, and the someone is everyone, most of whom are...

...benefiting greatly from it. and ought pay for it even if they weren't. education is a social expense and a social good.

Alright...I've officially blown off the steam that needed blown off. I'm going to go study with some Dogfishead 90 Minute IPA, this policy paper ain't gonna write itself, you know.

and i have an exam in 13 hours, oh joy time to revise.

weird coincidence that it took political instability and mass strikes for this to happen isn't it?

Circular argument, you are arguing that union actions caused the increases in the standard of living, and your only evidence is union actions.

weird because thats exactly what a scab does to the people working there

You go on and on and on, but you keep missing the question: What do I owe to people who intentions and actions in the here and now are to keep me out of a job?

Now, the scab is not doing to the union what the union is doing to the scab. All the scab is doing is offering a buyer a better deal.

unless.....

The California market was not deregulated. Wholesale price controls were relaxed, and retail price controls were relaxed in San Diego, and Orange Counties. No account was taken of increasing capacity in California (because building a power plant is effectively illegal there). The government actually made it more profitable to export electricity from California during an electricity shortage. A real free market is not going to have that effect.

Even the famous anti-Enron documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room", while talking about deregulation and free markets, gives the game away (talking about Enron's lawyers trawling through the complex rules of California's "deregulated free market")

Bravo. I wish students here had such good sense.

...benefiting greatly from it. and ought pay for it even if they weren't. education is a social expense and a social good.

Poppycock. Education benefits the one learning. Whatever benefits come to others come only because the one learning has benefitted, and even if they weren't forced to pay for the actual schooling, they pay for having the benefit (in paying for better products/workers etc). It is an investment by the pupil in his own future.

To be more exact, I benefit from someone else's education to the extent that I employ the services of the person so educated, and I pay for that benefit in paying for the services/goods in question.

because of expected tuition increases, i thinkTuition increases at a minimum with the rate of inflation. That seems to be what a $400 increase would be.

well, until the state learned it's lesson and stopped forcing kids into massive debt to get an education, at least."the state" is irrelevant, as most universities and colleges here are private. Even the public ones independently determine tuition.

yes, they should. they can go play elsewhere.

fuck scabs
...go "play"? These are students who are actually organizing to unify their voice that they WANT TO ATTEND CLASS!

Fuck up your own education. I don't care. Stand outside and bitch and moan about $400 all you want. Hell, you can even commit mass suicide. Just don't mess with me and my education.


that's all fine and dandy. but education is not simply a product it's a right. pricing poorer students out of the right to an education is criminal.they already subsidize most of the education system.
Or, work your ass off and get a scholarship. Hell, if your family makes less than $60,000 a year and you meet the requirements, you can go to Harvard.

But no, every brick deserves an attempt to make it float. If these students cared about their education, they'd be in class. Not protesting over $400. There are other ways to have your voice be heard without screwing yourself over. Really, they aren't hurting the state at all...they'd have to pay that money no matter what. They only hurt themselves when they are in college for an extra semester because they failed all of their classes.

Around here, the would already have failed every class on attendance alone. That'd be enough for, at minimum, academic probation, possibly expulsion. Not to mention, killing your QGPA and making grad school pretty impossible, and even initial employment difficult

otherwise known as 'making a stand on principle'

or being an asshat.

The basic story is like this:

The basic story seems to be that you're nothing but a dirty, little scab. I wish you complete and utter failure.

Not having unions = anarchy.

Anarchy = bad.

Not having unions = anarchy.

Anarchy = bad.

I don't think it's so much the presence of unions that's objectionable, it's the behavior of the unions in these strikes.

I wish the strikers best of luck and total success in their aims.

I wish the anti-union protesters insignificance and failure. :)

The basic story seems to be that you're nothing but a dirty, little scab. I wish you complete and utter failure.

Well, my opinion is quite the opposite. I fully support your right to freedom of speech, and your right to receive the education that you paid for, and I wish you best of luck in dealing with these violent obstructionists. :)

I don't think it's so much the presence of unions that's objectionable, it's the behavior of the unions in these strikes.

I see.

So basically, unions aren't bad, it's the leadership of said union that is bad.

Totalitarianism is bad, I agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Israeli_student_strike

Not exactly rich kids striking against paying more, is it? :rolleyes:

Our scabbing friends need to work on telling the truth, don't they? Students in the U.S. ought to organize this well, since we (well, not really me, I'm lucky that my parents are paying for me) get the really short end of the deal.

Our scabbing friends need to work on telling the truth, don't they?

They're scabs. They've already sunk that low, lying is a minor issue.

I know how to lower tuitions fees. Get rid of tuition. Students can just learn by google search. Well, they can for computer-related degrees.

They're scabs. They've already sunk that low, lying is a minor issue.

When do you not make snide argumentative comments?

If you ever express a real opinion, let me know.

They're scabs. They've already sunk that low, lying is a minor issue.

They arn't scabs, their cause is legitimate. They wouldn't be protesting if the uninion protestors wern't proventing them from actually doing their work. Now this can serioulsy fuck up the system and put people into more debt when this starts to happen for long periods of time.

They arn't scabs, their cause is legitimate. They wouldn't be protesting if the uninion protestors wern't proventing them from actually doing their work. Now this can serioulsy fuck up the system and put people into more debt when this starts to happen for long periods of time.

God forbid they try to go back to class.

They arn't scabs, their cause is legitimate. They wouldn't be protesting if the uninion protestors wern't proventing them from actually doing their work. Now this can serioulsy fuck up the system and put people into more debt when this starts to happen for long periods of time.

They're scabs. They're breaking a legitimate strike. Scabs are lower than dirt.

They're scabs. They're breaking a legitimate strike. Scabs are lower than dirt.

They're not breaking it, just protesting against them disrupting their education. If the unions wern't disrupting the apathetic peoples future, this wouldn't be happening.

They're not breaking it, just protesting against them disrupting their education. If the unions wern't disrupting the apathetic peoples future, this wouldn't be happening.

Oh dear. How fucking sorry I feel for them. Having their fellow students stand up for them, they feel the need to whine. What they are doing is fighting a legitimate strike, and that makes them scabs in my eyes.

They're scabs. They're breaking a legitimate strike. Scabs are lower than dirt.

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Israeli_student_strike

Not exactly rich kids striking against paying more, is it? :rolleyes:

Our scabbing friends need to work on telling the truth, don't they? Students in the U.S. ought to organize this well, since we (well, not really me, I'm lucky that my parents are paying for me) get the really short end of the deal.

Did you actually read the article you linked? Did you read the newspapers cited in the article? Well, let's see here:

The Wiki states the following in the first sentence - "The 2007 Israeli Student strike started in April 2007 in protest at the government decision to increase tutition fees." This was referenced to the following article linky (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122362). If you actually read the article, it states the following:

Students at colleges and universities across the country are continuing their strike against proposed tuition hikes, now into its fourth week. Efforts are being made to push off an ultimatum by the Committee of University Presidents until Tuesday.

Seems to confirm the "proposed rate hikes" statements posters have made here.

And I don't see anything in the Wiki that disputes what they've said about the income level of the student unions. Can you point me in the right direction?

Never trust what the Wiki says without reading the supporting docs...

Why?

Simple, Unions are powerful because they allow the free market to better the lives of workers, and fight for the good of workers without the intervention of the state. They are a perfect example of majoritarian politics outside of government. They speak for workers who otherwise are voiceless. Scabs are dirty little pigs who are willing to hurt their fellow workers for a little personal gain.

Simple, Unions are powerful because they allow the free market to better the lives of workers, and fight for the good of workers without the intervention of the state. They are a perfect example of majoritarian politics outside of government. They speak for workers who otherwise are voiceless. Scabs are dirty little pigs who are willing to hurt their fellow workers for a little personal gain.

I'm not too sure on the situation here and I can't be bothered to read through the thread but: are the protestors trying stop the uninion protestors from protesting at all? Or just to their protest from disrupting their own education?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Israeli_student_strike

Not exactly rich kids striking against paying more, is it? :rolleyes:

Our scabbing friends need to work on telling the truth, don't they? Students in the U.S. ought to organize this well, since we (well, not really me, I'm lucky that my parents are paying for me) get the really short end of the deal.

I'm not too sure on the situation here and I can't be bothered to read through the thread but: are the protestors trying stop the uninion protestors from protesting at all? Or just to their protest from disrupting their own education?

From what I gathered from the thread, the protesters are trying to stop the unions from disrupting class...

Well, that wikipedia article's certainly interesting.

Here's to the Israeli students. Solidarity! If only the NUS had this much spine... :(

I'm not too sure on the situation here and I can't be bothered to read through the thread but: are the protestors trying stop the uninion protestors from protesting at all? Or just to their protest from disrupting their own education?

Neither. The protesters are trying to disrupt the strike, effectively undermining all of the Student Union's bargaining power.

Neither. The protesters are trying to disrupt the strike, effectively undermining all of the Student Union's bargaining power.

Which they have every right to do. I'm sure they will stop once the union strikers stop deciding to fuck with their lives as well for no reason.

Simple, Unions are powerful because they allow the free market to better the lives of workers, and fight for the good of workers without the intervention of the state. They are a perfect example of majoritarian politics outside of government. They speak for workers who otherwise are voiceless. Scabs are dirty little pigs who are willing to hurt their fellow workers for a little personal gain.

First off, this is a boycott. The students are paying for a service and are not employed by the university.

Second, you cannot bring up the free market as a rationalization while at the same time bemoaning those who act in their own percieved self-interest. Those who oppose the strike are as much a legitimate market factor as those who are striking.

Third, you are calling for these students are protesting to remain voiceless, so your glorification of the union for speaking for the voiceless is not a little hypocritical.

Finally, I cannot see where you draw a line between a group of students working against a university who they think is screwing them and a group of students working against a union who they think is screwing them.

It is blind, ideological hypocrisy.

Which they have every right to do. I'm sure they will stop once the union strikers stop deciding to fuck with their lives as well for no reason.

They have every right to do it. That doesn't mean that I don't have the right to call them spineless fucking scabs, and afford them a level of respect reserved for such toerags. The union strikers are in the right, and they are fighting for these ungreatful scabs, to lower the cost of education.

First off, this is a boycott. The students are paying for a service and are not employed by the university.

It isn't exactly the same there as it is here. There, the education is about the students, rather than the company running the university.

Second, you cannot bring up the free market as a rationalization while at the same time bemoaning those who act in their own percieved self-interest. Those who oppose the strike are as much a legitimate market factor as those who are striking.

Sure I can. I can call the scabs scabs while beleiving that they have every political right to do what they do. That doesn't make them any less shit.

Third, you are calling for these students are protesting to remain voiceless, so your glorification of the union for speaking for the voiceless is not a little hypocritical.

You don't understand. Each of them has a right to membership in the Union as well. That means that they got their vote. The majority of students elected the leadership that is carrying out this strike. This is like losing a Presidential election and refusing to acknowledge the power of the new President. These students have voices, and they are free to use them, but to call them voiceless is stupid.

Finally, I cannot see where you draw a line between a group of students working against a university who they think is screwing them and a group of students working against a union who they think is screwing them.

Because one is the powerless fighting the empowered, and the other is the powerful (rich kids) fighting against the powerless.

When do you not make snide argumentative comments?
If you ever express a real opinion, let me know.
That's the difference between you and me. You care whether I express an opinion or not, while I couldn't give a turd about you.

That's the difference between you and me. You care whether I express an opinion or not, while I couldn't give a turd about you.

I think in my 15,000 or so posts, I have never once entered an argument with you and your vacuous statements.

So the feeling is mutual outside of your incessant baiting that inevitably results in a waste of forum space.

I think in my 15,000 or so posts, I have never once entered an argument with you and your vacuous statements.

So the feeling is mutual outside of your incessant baiting that inevitably results in a waste of forum space.

There it is again, this caring of what I write or not. In my 20,000 or so posts, I don't even remember who the fuck you are and I most probably won't notice you after this thread either. But, do feel free to continue noticing me - sure it's kind of creepy, but it's also kind of hilarious.

It isn't exactly the same there as it is here. There, the education is about the students, rather than the company running the university.

From what I understand this is about students negotiating the lowering of the price of the education with the supplier of the education, so you will have to get a little more detailed concerning the difference.

Sure I can. I can call the scabs scabs while beleiving that they have every political right to do what they do. That doesn't make them any less shit.

You based your pro-union argument on the fact that they are a market entity negotiating for their self-interest, and I am pro-union for the exact same reason.

The problem is that these protesting students are no different.

You don't understand. Each of them has a right to membership in the Union as well. That means that they got their vote. The majority of students elected the leadership that is carrying out this strike. This is like losing a Presidential election and refusing to acknowledge the power of the new President. These students have voices, and they are free to use them, but to call them voiceless is stupid.

This is circular reasoning.

You presume the legitimacy of the union to speak for the students to explain that the union speaks for the students.

Why should these students consider the union a moral obligation in the first place?

Because one is the powerless fighting the empowered, and the other is the powerful (rich kids) fighting against the powerless.

You are sure that the protesters are rich kids?

Anyway, why does that matter?

In my 20,000 or so posts, I don't even remember who the fuck you are and I most probably won't notice you after this thread either.

Yes, I typically don't go slumming.

Yes, I typically don't go slumming.

But yet you manage to stalk me sufficiently to be judge of my postings? Sure, sweetie, sure... go back to lurking. You obviously do your best work that way.

But yet you manage to stalk me sufficiently to be judge of my postings? Sure, sweetie, sure... go back to lurking. You obviously do your best work that way.

Your crap is inescapable.

20,000 posts of it can create a pretty pervasive stench.

Your crap is inescapable.

To you, at least. Je fais de mon mieux. :)

20,000 posts of it can create a pretty pervasive stench.

I thought you didn't slum? I guess you just lie about what you do or don't.

I thought you didn't slum? I guess you just lie about what you do or don't.

You see, when something is pervasive it is present everywhere.

Even the penthouse can smell like shit when the sewer overflows.

You see, when something is pervasive it is present everywhere. Even the penthouse can smell like shit when the sewer overflows.

And not so much unlike a sewage system, you seemingly can't go on without partaking of me, whoever you are. Oh, so creepy, oh, so ego boosting - this lady that doth the protesting is giving me way too much pleasure.

And not so much unlike a sewage system, you seemingly can't go on without partaking of me, whoever you are. Oh, so creepy, oh, so ego boosting - this lady that doth the protesting is giving me way too much pleasure.

Shakespeare?

Shakespeare?

A paraphrase.

The basic story seems to be that you're nothing but a dirty, little scab. I wish you complete and utter failure.

Mutual.

And not so much unlike a sewage system, you seemingly can't go on without partaking of me, whoever you are.

Yes, you bear many similarities to a sewage system.

And here I thought you had a mind closed to reason, go figure!

In the U.S., unions are groups of employees of some organization. Strikes - refusal of workers to report to work - are conducted to gain higher salaries, better working conditions, etc. The result of a strike is typically a reduction in the ability of the organization to produce goods or services for customers. This is a tool used by labor unions.

As for student unions: Students who refuse to attend classes have no such leverage - they can't stop the university from collecting tuition subsidiaries from the government. They will not receive tuition refunds, and they will not receive credit for courses they don't attend. The university administrators aren't likely to be disturbed by this outcome. So - student strikes aren't appropriate here.

Student demonstrations, conducted in protest, are more likely to get administrators' attention because they are disruptive. Unfortunately for the students, if administrators decide to have them arrested for disturbing the peace, the students can be arrested and fined by local courts. Apparently Israeli law works differently than U.S. law does?

Yes, you bear many similarities to a sewage system.

And here I thought you had a mind closed to reason, go figure!

Quit provoking Fass.

As for the students who aren't protesting and want to go to class....

If education is a right, then why should the union be forcing other students to revoke their right? They're paying for it as well, and if it's their right, then why does the union have any legitimacy in stopping those who care about their future from having their education.

The union has absolutely no right to demand a sacrifice from students who wish not to be a part of them. The students have a right to look after themselves, and have a right to tell the union to piss off. The union may have a right to strike, but, again, it does not have a right to deny the right of education to others, simply because they don't feel like being asshats.

Quit provoking Fass.

Tell me that is sarcasm.

Oh dear. How fucking sorry I feel for them. Having their fellow students stand up for them, they feel the need to whine. What they are doing is fighting a legitimate strike, and that makes them scabs in my eyes.

They never asked for their fellow students to stand up for them.

The basic story is like this:


You're a dupe.

Why are you protesting the strike? If you don't want to get involved, go get drunk or something, and let the grown ups sort things out.

Because the strikers are not merely boycotting classes, they are actively disrupting the learning of others.
Go... get... drunk.

Because the strikers are not merely boycotting classes, they are actively disrupting the learning of others.

Because the strikers are not merely boycotting classes, they are actively disrupting the learning of others.

By boycotting classes. This is fun, I could do this all night long...

I wish our student union were that good. Our tuition has gone up about 88% in the last six years. Of course, with education being deemed an essential service, if we were to strike it would probably be illegal.

By boycotting classes.

Judging by the level of literacy you've shown, you can't afford to boycott classes. The student union have locked, and chained the classrooms. That was pretty clearly stated earlier in the thread.

I wish our student union were that good. Our tuition has gone up about 88% in the last six years. Of course, with education being deemed an essential service, if we were to strike it would probably be illegal.

You are not talking about a strike, you are talking about a boycott.

Judging by the level of literacy you've shown, you can't afford to boycott classes. The student union have locked, and chained the classrooms. That was pretty clearly stated earlier in the thread.
Like I give a fuck about anything that happened "earlier in the thread", clearly stated or otherwise, you pompous ass.

Like I give a fuck about anything that happened "earlier in the thread", clearly stated or otherwise, you pompous ass.

If you don't want to read, why bother responding?

If you don't want to read, why bother responding?
There's 180 posts. Seeing as most posts take me a minute to read that is about (assuming this thread didn't devolve into flame wars on page 2) that is 3 hours worth of reading, plus page loading time, which can take 5 or 10 minutes per page if you're unlucky. On top of that, you would be arguing with posters who are not even online anymore and wouldn't see your post in the morning as it would be buried under another 3 hours worth of posts to read.

You are not talking about a strike, you are talking about a boycott.
Well, a mere boycott would be even easier for the government to squash, now wouldn't it?

Uh oh, strikes and the Israeli government?

If they start throwing rocks, I suppose they'd have to call in the tanks and rocket launcher brigades.
I was referring to the BC government.

Well, a mere boycott would be even easier for the government to squash, now wouldn't it?

Uh oh, strikes and the Israeli government?

If they start throwing rocks, I suppose they'd have to call in the tanks and rocket launcher brigades.

Well, a mere boycott would be even easier for the government to squash, now wouldn't it?

What?! That makes no sense whatsoever. Its not like they can get the police to force everyone into the classrooms, force them to listen to the lecture quietly, and participate constructively.

How exactly can a government quash a boycott?

What?! That makes no sense whatsoever. Its not like they can get the police to force everyone into the classrooms, force them to listen to the lecture quietly, and participate constructively.

How exactly can a government quash a boycott?
Arrest a few people. That'd break up the boycott pretty quickly, or start a riot.
Or they could do like they did to the teachers and delay deposits into participants bank accounts.

Arrest a few people. That'd break up the boycott pretty quickly, or start a riot.

Nonsense, again, that makes no sense, and has no historical precedent.

Or they could do like they did to the teachers and delay deposits into participants bank accounts.

They aren't being paid to go to class.

Eariler you went on about how I should not insist that people read the thread. I think you are proving my argument. You wouldn't be posting any of this incoherent rubbish if you had read the thread. You might at least have read the first post, or searched for news of the boycotts.

Like I give a fuck about anything that happened "earlier in the thread", clearly stated or otherwise, you pompous ass.
Pompous ass......good one there Dobbsy!! :)

Admittedly, if there was an aggressive student union like this one at OSU, and they went on "strike" (it really isn't a strike, just a disruptive boycott) I'd probably get piss drunk and puke all over the strikers.

Classy.

That's me :D

Admittedly, if there was an aggressive student union like this one at OSU, and they went on "strike" (it really isn't a strike, just a disruptive boycott) I'd probably get piss drunk and puke all over the strikers.

Classy.

Judging by the level of literacy you've shown, you can't afford to boycott classes. The student union have locked, and chained the classrooms. That was pretty clearly stated earlier in the thread.
I generally don't like to nitpick, but since you talk about "judging the level of literacy", I feel compelled to help you out. :D

The student union have locked, and chained the classrooms.
Try using the word "has" instead of "have" and your sentence will then be grammatically correct. :D

I generally don't like to nitpick, but since you talk about "judging the level of literacy", I feel compelled to help you out. :D


Try using the word "has" instead of "have" and your sentence will then be grammatically correct. :D

Don't be a dick. Dobbs is a citizen of a country with English as its national language, Allanea isn't.

Some pictures:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/allanea/demonstration/me.jpg
Me, looking stupid with a poster. The poster says “This is not the way, just let us study.”

Is that Hebrew? I didn't know that it is also written backwards (guess that from the exclamation point in the beginning).

What? Why? A student is a consumer... consumers don't have the ability to strike... what?

I mean, surely, if these people really wanted to damage the university then wouldn't it be a better idea to organise a collective leave of absence. That way the university has to refund the fees for the time in which the student will not be in attendence. An organisation without money falls flat on its face... sounds like a much better idea than a silly strike.

What? Why? A student is a consumer... consumers don't have the ability to strike... what?

I mean, surely, if these people really wanted to damage the university then wouldn't it be a better idea to organise a collective leave of absence. That way the university has to refund the fees for the time in which the student will not be in attendence. An organisation without money falls flat on its face... sounds like a much better idea than a silly strike.

I don't know how universities work over there, but over here, we pay them money then we can come or not come, they don't give a fuck we already paid them thousands of dollars for the semester. And they can even fail us for not showing up enough to certain classes and make us pay more money to have to take it again.

I don't know how universities work over there, but over here, we pay them money then we can come or not come, they don't give a fuck we already paid them thousands of dollars for the semester. And they can even fail us for not showing up enough to certain classes and make us pay more money to have to take it again.In the UK, you can take a leave of absence and the university will partially refund your fees. But anyway, the university only has enough money to last it one academic year. All the students need do is threaten not to enroll come the beginning of the autumn term. No students, no money. Sure the university will have a fresh intake, but probably not enough to cover the amount of students that are protesting.

Nonsense, again, that makes no sense, and has no historical precedent.
The government has arrested protesters before. Hell in Ontario, they've shot them.
They aren't being paid to go to class.
But most of them do have a job of somekind. Since most students are about as broke as you get, it'd be pretty effective.

Pompous ass......good one there Dobbsy!! :)

I aims tah please, suh.

In the UK, you can take a leave of absence and the university will partially refund your fees. But anyway, the university only has enough money to last it one academic year. All the students need do is threaten not to enroll come the beginning of the autumn term. No students, no money. Sure the university will have a fresh intake, but probably not enough to cover the amount of students that are protesting.

Haha, if they did that here, the yearly increase in fees would be 40% instead of 5 or 10.

What? Why? A student is a consumer... consumers don't have the ability to strike... what?

I mean, surely, if these people really wanted to damage the university then wouldn't it be a better idea to organise a collective leave of absence. That way the university has to refund the fees for the time in which the student will not be in attendence. An organisation without money falls flat on its face... sounds like a much better idea than a silly strike.

Agreed.

What the student unions seem to be doing here is an attempt to force other people into participating in their movement, even if they don't want to. There's something wrong about that, in my book.

What? Why? A student is a consumer... consumers don't have the ability to strike... what?

rent strikes, fare strikes...

what makes this a strike rather than a boycott is that it isn't merely a refusal to go to school. that can be accomplished by not being students there at all. this is a direct action by students to disrupt the normal functioning of the institution - to shut down the school rather than withdraw from it.

so in the montgomery bus boycott that followed rosa parks' refusal to give up her seat, people were encouraged to not ride the bus at all. but in the various fare strikes that have been held, the buses ran like normal and people just didn't pay. this works best when the bus drivers are in on it - kinda like how a student strike works best when it has support from the teachers' unions. you know, like this one.

Haha, if they did that here, the yearly increase in fees would be 40% instead of 5 or 10.Which means huge swathes of people wouldn't be able to afford the fees so even less people would enroll until finally the university is basically a private tutition service. Then due to the lack of skilled workers the bottom falls out of the economy and university is out on its ass. Students do have bargaining power in that respect.
rent strikes, fare strikes...

what makes this a strike rather than a boycott is that it isn't merely a refusal to go to school. that can be accomplished by not being students there at all. this is a direct action by students to disrupt the normal functioning of the institution - to shut down the school rather than withdraw from it.

so in the montgomery bus boycott that followed rosa parks' refusal to give up her seat, people were encouraged to not ride the bus at all. but in the various fare strikes that have been held, the buses ran like normal and people just didn't pay. this works best when the bus drivers are in on it - kinda like how a student strike works best when it has support from the teachers' unions. you know, like this one.Your example doesn't seem to follow. In your example the service is still being provided, but it is not being paid for, whereas in this situation the the complete opposite is true - the service has been paid for but people are actively stopping people from using it. It would be like someone getting a season pass for a bus and then finding a group of people standing by the bus stop who are preventing people from getting on the bus.

I don't believe the students have any right to do what they are doing. Furthermore its like I live in an apartment block, I pay my rent one month in advance, I go off to university in the morning, and upon my return I find a group of people blocking the entrance to the building because they're pissed off that the rent is going up next time we have to pay. Sorry, but no. I wouldn't care if they did what you did which would be not to pay their fees, but to still turn up to class and lectures the following year. That would be fine.

Your example doesn't seem to follow. In your example the service is still being provided, but it is not being paid for, whereas in this situation the the complete opposite is true - the service has been paid for but people are actively stopping people from using it. It would be like someone getting a season pass for a bus and then finding a group of people standing by the bus stop who are preventing people from getting on the bus.

blocking access to the bus would also be a kind of strike action. a different one than a fare strike, however. if it was done by the drivers themselves it would most likely take the form of a sit-down strike, and if done by either riders or the population in general it would amount to either an occupation or a blockade. all of which have long and glorious histories as strike actions.

the unifying feature is the direct action aimed at hitting those in charge where it hurts. the situation determines the exact tactics of how best to do that.

Furthermore its like I live in an apartment block, I pay my rent one month in advance, I go off to university in the morning, and upon my return I find a group of people blocking the entrance to the building because they're pissed off that the rent is going up next time we have to pay. Sorry, but no.

that ain't how rent strikes work and for good reason. how would blocking your access to your apt hurt the landlord? the answer is, it wouldn't. what you want to do is block the landlord's access and cut off his money.

likewise in the case of striking students. if they want to hold the admin accountable, what are their options? the uni already got paid for this semester, so a boycott just gets you a failing grade and the uni gets along fine. so what you do is you shut the place down and refuse to let the institution operate until they bargain.

Don't be a dick. Dobbs is a citizen of a country with English as its national language, Allanea isn't.
I wasn't referring to Allanea, I quoted Mesoriya. Don't get your knickers in a knot. :D

In the end, unions, like all political or economic institutions, only have legitimacy when they are met with the constant possibility of opposition.

It may be a characteristic of the universe that something may only be true and/or just when it can be judged against what it is not.

likewise in the case of striking students. if they want to hold the admin accountable, what are their options? the uni already got paid for this semester, so a boycott just gets you a failing grade and the uni gets along fine. so what you do is you shut the place down and refuse to let the institution operate until they bargain.

The fact that you find their cause appealing on a subjective level does not give them the right to disrupt the lawful business of others.

Once they decide to shut something down because they are less than completely content, they cross the line.

Now, there is one question that has been left unanswered here, I'll ask you: What do the opponents of the union owe to the union?

Goddamn, if students in the US rioted every time there was a tuition hike, there'd be a riot 365 days of the year, every year.

Yes, but after a few years I'd imagine the schools might lower their tuition a bit.

Tell me that is sarcasm.

No, it isn't. Stop provoking Fass, and he'll leave you alone. If he doesn't, then ignore him, and stop taking the bait.

Now, there is one question that has been left unanswered here, I'll ask you: What do the opponents of the union owe to the union?

Nothing. The union has no right to speak for those that are not of its membership, no matter how much moral authority it claims to have. The union has no right to take away the rights of others to still continue with their education.

No, it isn't. Stop provoking Fass.

Ok, even though I enjoyed that little pissing match.

I just hope you offer Fass that same advice.

This sounds like a case for Super Soakers.

Ok, even though I enjoyed that little pissing match.

I just hope you offer Fass that same advice.

Fass will be Fass. Though I agree, I wish he wouldn't be as...inflammatory...as he was.

This sounds like a case for Super Soakers.

What a novel idea. A water gun fight in the university.

that ain't how rent strikes work and for good reason. how would blocking your access to your apt hurt the landlord? the answer is, it wouldn't. what you want to do is block the landlord's access and cut off his money.

likewise in the case of striking students. if they want to hold the admin accountable, what are their options? the uni already got paid for this semester, so a boycott just gets you a failing grade and the uni gets along fine. so what you do is you shut the place down and refuse to let the institution operate until they bargain.Buh... what? Argh, that's a pretty amazing case of double think. I don't see how this student strikes differs in any way, shape or form from the apartment strike that I suggested.

How the hell does blocking access to the university hurt the university? The answer is that is doesn't. And these students haven't done anything to put pressure on the university's income. Their idiots.

Buh... what? Argh, that's a pretty amazing case of double think. I don't see how this student strikes differs in any way, shape or form from the apartment strike that I suggested.

because nobody will lose out on anything in the student strike

How the hell does blocking access to the university hurt the university? The answer is that is doesn't.

yes, i'm sure the board of regents (or whatever equivalent they have over there) is totally down with striking students shutting the whole place down

because nobody will lose out on anything in the student strike

What about the students that wish to learn and NOT participate in this strike? Do they lose nothing? Do they not lose out on their ability to complete those courses they are currently enrolled in?

What about the students that wish to learn and NOT participate in this strike? Do they lose nothing? Do they not lose out on their ability to complete those courses they are currently enrolled in?

no, they don't. those courses are essentially being postponed, not lost.

because nobody will lose out on anything in the student strikeI'd heard university education was pretty crappy, but I didn't realise it was that crap.