NationStates Jolt Archive

#16: @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ Workers Strike!

The Issue
Workers across the nation have gone out on indefinite strike over what they claim are substandard wages in the @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ industry.

The Debate
1. "We are the backbone of this country, and we demand a fair wage rise!" says union leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I don't think a 20% increase over two years is too much to ask. Unless the government forces employers to give us our due, we'll shut this whole industry down! Let's see how well @@NAME@@'s economy manages without any @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@, huh?

2. "We pay our employees very generous wages," says employer representative @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Especially when you consider that without us, they'd be OUT ON THE STREET. Hear that, you scumbags? OUT ON THE STREET! Anyway, my point is, if you cave in, you make our entire industry uncompetitive. You can't do that in the global marketplace. It'll hurt the whole country. The best solution, economically speaking, would be to relax industrial laws and allow us to fire troublemakers on the spot."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so looking at this issue, I'm suspecting major changes coming from this. I'm guessing option one will raise Personal Freedoms and drop economy, option two will do the opposite. Any other thoughts?

I only ever do option 2 and I know for a fact that it does nothing to personal freedoms. It does boost the economy and economic freedoms though.

More economic freedom for employers, less economic freedom for the employees, who far outnumber the employers. This game has a strange definition of economic freedom.

More economic freedom for employers, less economic freedom for the employees, who far outnumber the employers. This game has a strange definition of economic freedom.

How is that less economic freedom for anyone? Government oppression of one group may favor another group, but does not mean that they are any less oppressed than they were before.

I don't understand what you mean. Let's say the government always does what the employers want and oppresses the employees. Isn't that equivalent to the employers being the oppressors while not being oppressed themselves?

Yes but allowing buisness to do what it wants isn't oppressing the employees. The emphasis is on what the government does, not what the employers do.

It depends who controls the businesses. If the businesses were controlled by employees, then allowing businesses to do what they want wouldn't be oppressing them. If the businesses are not controlled by employees, then allowing them to do whatever they want to their employees (for example, employers whipping employees for being late to work and the government executing employees when they try to fight back) would be oppression.

Yes, but the above issue is far from that. Option 2 involves the government being completely uninvolved one way or the other.

Not true. If the government was truly going to be uninvolved, then they wouldn't do anything if the strikers engage in a workplace occupation, ignore the employer, and continue to pay themselves from the revenue of the company (without paying the employer anything, of course).

Not true. If the government was truly going to be uninvolved, then they wouldn't do anything if the strikers engage in a workplace occupation, ignore the employer, and continue to pay themselves from the revenue of the company (without paying the employer anything, of course).

WTF? So you're actually trying to say that relaxing the law is oppressing people? I'm sorry but no, it doesn't work that way. For the gorvernment to be truly uninvolved it has to do nothing to the industry or the workers, no matter what they do to each other, and that is clearly what option 2 stipulates.

I don't think you've read my last post. Sure, if the government stayed out, then the employers could fire all the strikers. But the fired employees could show up at work anyway and continue to use the company's equipment to make money - ignoring the fact that employers are supposed to be the ones giving the orders. There's no government preventing them from doing so, right? It's economic freedom.

That's trespassing, and using the equipment borders on stealing. Disallowing that is a civil rights issue, not an economic one.

Perhaps to capitalists it's a civil rights issue, but to anarcho-syndicalists, it's a matter of economic freedom. Anacho-syndicalists don't believe it should be illegal to assume democratic control over the equipment they've already been using to do their jobs. If fact, many would argue it is the employer who is stealing from the products of their labor.

Sorry but argueing semantics doesn't work. It should be common sense that relaxing the law isn't oppressing anyone.

I'm not debating philosophy, I'm debating objective fact. And the objective fact is that option 2 free's corporations to fire people. It does nothing to change anything about what the workers can and can't do about it.

If you let any employer say the words, "you're fired", sure, you could call that more economic freedom. However, if the fired employees refuse to leave, and the employer called in the government to forcibly make them leave, then anarcho-syndicalists would call that a limitation of the economic freedom of the employees. Relaxing the law that says fired employees must leave the building would be seen as less oppressive to anarcho-syndicalists.

*looks over issue*


I think i vote #1 all the time. Maybe i should try voting for #2 once to see what it does...although i just hope it doesn't hurt my nation at all...heh

If you let any employer say the words, "you're fired", sure, you could call that more economic freedom. However, if the fired employees refuse to leave, and the employer called in the government to forcibly make them leave, then anarcho-syndicalists would call that a limitation of the economic freedom of the employees. Relaxing the law that says fired employees must leave the building would be seen as less oppressive to anarcho-syndicalists.

I don't give a shit what anarcho-syndicalists call it, it isn't a limitation on anyone's freedom. I already told you, this is about fact, not philosophy. Strange cultists might also call it a limitation of political freedom, but that doesn't make it so. And besides that the issue says nothing about the government's tresspassing laws at all, so you lose on that front as well.

In any case, it's clear you just want to argue semantics and have no idea what the effects of the issue are, so why the fuck even post?

In any case, it's clear you just want to argue semantics and have no idea what the effects of the issue are, so why the fuck even post?Technically, you don't either, as you can't see the code, so how about calming down a little?

True, but I wanted to ask that to make sure the arguement stays on topic. I didn't feel anarcho-syndichist angles on the issue were partcularly on subject.