Scabs or not Scabs?

Question

We as people post freely on the Internet. We as people experience difficulties, and expect feedback. What feedback do people really get other than complaints? As people, are people expected to live freely more than what they have or are they expected to live in within their merit. To what extent does this freedom extend to us all. The extent to which we can tranverse, is only a meaning within itself that we consider our own well being. But if this being is comprimised, to what extent is it?

Everyone enjoys something, but do we foresee that enjoyment? Is a trip to a museum worth it? Yes. Is a trip to a court of law worth it? Yes. Is a trip to enter your personal plea bargains worth it? No.

What manner of speaking or even worth do we possess even in this day and age? Even the American government says that your meaning is futile as it can observe, eradicate and possess every essence of your being by being a presence of thought, communication and idea on the Internet.

Answer 1

The long ramble in "details" does not seem to have anything to do with "Scabs or not scabs." Nevertheless, I will answer that question, since the rest does not make a great deal of sense.

The term "scab" is used by union leaders to describe anyone who works while they strike. So a scab is specifically anti-union, not simply non-union. If you feel misused by the union, the most forward thing you can do is cross the picket line and go do your job. However, the media tends to side with the union in these issues, so you will be on TV as a villain, described as taking food out of the mouths of the union workers' babies.

But "where working men defend their rights," as the Joe Hill song puts it, is not really what unions are about. Men who do not want to join the union are not supposed to have any rights, by this rhetoric, so what they really mean is "where union members defend their privileges at the expense of other working men." Or as I re-wrote Joe Hill: Where men defend their right to work.

No one should be able to interfere between yourself and your employer while you want to go to work. There is no reason or logic to insisting that those who do not join the union must nevertheless obey their rules.

It's not even really tyranny of the majority. The rank and file inevitably vote the way the union leaders tell them to, because without that, they do not have the very union upon which they rely. So it is really tyranny of the minority -- the union leaders over all workers, whether union members or not.

Answer 2

My answer - yes.
Rambling a bit, don't you think?
Wake me up when the coffee is ready.

Answer 3

In answer to your original question......SCAB...you are definitely a scab!