Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:30:33 +0100
From: Erik <erikb-AT-agoranet.be>
Subject: Re: WG: STRIKE


At 20:13 +0100 08-02-1982, der_ft._ike-AT-gmx.net wrote:
>Greetings
>I decided to forward a mail I got from one of my capitalistic friends, cause
>for this discussion of us was the international internet strike yesterday
>(seven European 'countries' participated to get a special phone offer for
>internet users):
>
>Hi Marius
>
>First of all I have to get something straight: strike is not strike. You
>have to distinguish between a worker strike and a consumer strike. That's
>really not the same thing.
>WORKER STRIKE: If some workers go on strike they violat the employment
>contract, they show that they are not thankful for having a job and they are
>no longer loyal to their employer. That is what a company should really not
>accept and such a worker strike is economically not justifiable. If a worker
>isn't content with his salary he should choose the smart way and look for
>another job. (Free choice of job is a condition of the market economy, but
>strikes destroy the market economy!)
>CONSUMER STRIKE: An important point is the fact that a consumer strike is
>legal: there is nothing like a consumer contract that obligates the consumer
>to buy something. A consumer strike tries to force a company to producing
>better things, to lower the prices or to dupe the clients better. (Free
>choice of consum is a condition of the market economy, too.) So, the
>consumer strike is not really a strike.
>CONNECTION WORKER STRIKE - CONSUMER STRIKE: A worker strike tries to raise
>the pays -> the company needs more money -> the company can't lower the
>prices -> consumer strike; A consumer strike tries to lower the prices ->
>the company needs more money -> the company can't raise the salaries ->
>worker strike.
>It's only a very simple scheme that doesn't work in practice so easy, but
>it's really very interesting....
>SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT: The workers should all quit one's job at the
>same time and then the employer would probably reconsider the situation.
>This way would be absolutely legal! But the problem is that most of the
>worker don't have the courage for doing that.
>
>J=F6rg
>
>I already answered this mail but your additional comments are welcome (and
>will be forwarded to him), especially about his 'so smart' SUGGESTION FOR
>IMPROVEMENT. I'm not sure whether he really believes what he's writing, I
>couldn't...
>
>Diversity and Unity


Well the whole flaw in this argument rests on the (so-called) premisse that
"Free choice of job is a condition of the market economy". This is simply
not true. Freedom of poverty is not freedom. Freedom of being underpaid and
exploited is not freedom.

Erik