Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Loren Pechtel]

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Legal protests are designed to disrupt activity and they are not against the law. Please link to any federal, state or local laws that make disrupting business illegal.

Protests are generally not allowed to disrupt a business.

You can picket it, but once you start interfering with it's operations you've crossed the line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The negotiations are based on the threat of force, they're extortion.

Not really. A strike is a protest against the pay and conditions being forced upon workers who have no other means with which to improve their pay and conditions. It is a balancing of power. You should know why unions were formed. You should know the condition of workers during industrialization.

Trying to put a smiley face on a crime doesn't make it not a crime.

 

[laughing dog]

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Legal protests are designed to disrupt activity and they are not against the law. Please link to any federal, state or local laws that make disrupting business illegal.

Protests are generally not allowed to disrupt a business.

You can picket it, but once you start interfering with it's operations you've crossed the line.

Strikes with picket lines are not interfering with operations anymore than legal protests with pickets.

Still waiting forr a link to any federal, state or local laws that make disrupting business illegal.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you saying that workers cannot use money, because that is ridiculous.

Try to understand what I'm saying rather than twisting it.

Owner A invests in building a business. That money has been converted into the business equipment and structure, it can't be converted back.

It's possible for A to sell his business to B, thus freeing up those dollars but using up the same number of dollars elsewhere. Playing musical chairs with the money doesn't convert it back to consumer spending.

Try to focus. We were discussing the choice to buy a physical asset or to sell one, not selling the business. The only one twisting anything is you with your goalpost shifting.

 

[DBT]

The organized nature of the action is inherently designed to disrupt the business.

Legal protests are designed to disrupt activity and they are not against the law. Please link to any federal, state or local laws that make disrupting business illegal.

Protests are generally not allowed to disrupt a business.

You can picket it, but once you start interfering with it's operations you've crossed the line.

Withdrawing labour disrupts production because it is the employees who do the work. If there are no mechanics in the workshop, for example, there is nobody there to repair cars for the customers.

 

[DBT]

Which is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The negotiations are based on the threat of force, they're extortion.

Not really. A strike is a protest against the pay and conditions being forced upon workers who have no other means with which to improve their pay and conditions. It is a balancing of power. You should know why unions were formed. You should know the condition of workers during industrialization.

Trying to put a smiley face on a crime doesn't make it not a crime.

It's not a crime to withhold one's labour. Going on strike is withholding one's labour as a means of balancing power between management and the workforce, usually a last resort.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you saying that workers cannot use money, because that is ridiculous.

Try to understand what I'm saying rather than twisting it.

Owner A invests in building a business. That money has been converted into the business equipment and structure, it can't be converted back.

It's possible for A to sell his business to B, thus freeing up those dollars but using up the same number of dollars elsewhere. Playing musical chairs with the money doesn't convert it back to consumer spending.

Try to focus. We were discussing the choice to buy a physical asset or to sell one, not selling the business. The only one twisting anything is you with your goalpost shifting.

You're not making a meaningful distinction. Whether it's a piece or the whole thing the effect is the same, you can't eat the tools.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trying to put a smiley face on a crime doesn't make it not a crime.

It's not a crime to withhold one's labour. Going on strike is withholding one's labour as a means of balancing power between management and the workforce, usually a last resort.

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

Simple question: In what way is a strike not a deliberate action designed to disrupt a business's operation in order to get concessions?

Don't say it's because it's the only way to get what they want. The mugger points a gun at you because it's the only way to get what he wants. Is that ok?

 

[laughing dog]

Try to focus. We were discussing the choice to buy a physical asset or to sell one, not selling the business. The only one twisting anything is you with your goalpost shifting.

You're not making a meaningful distinction. Whether it's a piece or the whole thing the effect is the same, you can't eat the tools.

Repeating your stupid example does not make it relevant - no one is talking about eating physical capital. An owner can choose to sell a piece of capital and choose to use that money for other purposes - including paying workers. An owner can choose to pay workers more instead of purchasing a capital asset. Nothing you have written rebuts that clear and obvious distinction that anyone even remotely familiar with economics or reason can understand.

 

[DBT]

Trying to put a smiley face on a crime doesn't make it not a crime.

It's not a crime to withhold one's labour. Going on strike is withholding one's labour as a means of balancing power between management and the workforce, usually a last resort.

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

The point is not to harm the business, the aim is to improve pay and conditions for workers. It is in the interest of business to keep labour cost down in order to maximize profits, hence the management have little interest in raising wages unless they are compelled to. A strike serves to motivate a reluctant management to improve pay and conditions for their workers.

Simple question: In what way is a strike not a deliberate action designed to disrupt a business's operation in order to get concessions?

Don't say it's because it's the only way to get what they want. The mugger points a gun at you because it's the only way to get what he wants. Is that ok?

Workers don't usually go on strike unless that is the only option left to them. As I said before, workers lose pay when they strike. Pay that many can ill afford to lose. They do it in the hope of improving their lot in the longer term.

 

[RVonse]

Trying to put a smiley face on a crime doesn't make it not a crime.

It's not a crime to withhold one's labour. Going on strike is withholding one's labour as a means of balancing power between management and the workforce, usually a last resort.

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

Collective bargaining is the only way for free market capitalism to flourish and function. Otherwise the management side becomes a monopoly.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

 

[DBT]

Exactly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try to focus. We were discussing the choice to buy a physical asset or to sell one, not selling the business. The only one twisting anything is you with your goalpost shifting.

You're not making a meaningful distinction. Whether it's a piece or the whole thing the effect is the same, you can't eat the tools.

Repeating your stupid example does not make it relevant - no one is talking about eating physical capital. An owner can choose to sell a piece of capital and choose to use that money for other purposes - including paying workers. An owner can choose to pay workers more instead of purchasing a capital asset. Nothing you have written rebuts that clear and obvious distinction that anyone even remotely familiar with economics or reason can understand.

Yes, you can pay workers more rather than invest in the business.

Farmers call that eating your seed corn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

The point is not to harm the business, the aim is to improve pay and conditions for workers. It is in the interest of business to keep labour cost down in order to maximize profits, hence the management have little interest in raising wages unless they are compelled to. A strike serves to motivate a reluctant management to improve pay and conditions for their workers.

The objective is to threaten the business in order to get more money.

Simple question: In what way is a strike not a deliberate action designed to disrupt a business's operation in order to get concessions?

Don't say it's because it's the only way to get what they want. The mugger points a gun at you because it's the only way to get what he wants. Is that ok?

Workers don't usually go on strike unless that is the only option left to them. As I said before, workers lose pay when they strike. Pay that many can ill afford to lose. They do it in the hope of improving their lot in the longer term.

Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

Collective bargaining is the only way for free market capitalism to flourish and function. Otherwise the management side becomes a monopoly.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is it's being done with the specific purpose of disrupting the business, as opposed to people simply quitting which would cause harm but doesn't have the intent of causing that harm.

Collective bargaining is the only way for free market capitalism to flourish and function. Otherwise the management side becomes a monopoly.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

I think you just set the record for destroying irony meters with one sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

Repeating your stupid example does not make it relevant - no one is talking about eating physical capital. An owner can choose to sell a piece of capital and choose to use that money for other purposes - including paying workers. An owner can choose to pay workers more instead of purchasing a capital asset. Nothing you have written rebuts that clear and obvious distinction that anyone even remotely familiar with economics or reason can understand.

Yes, you can pay workers more rather than invest in the business.

Farmers call that eating your seed corn.

Nah, farmers call that bullshit. But I was wondering when you were going to post that idiotic meme.

 

[fromderinside]

Collective bargaining is the only way for free market capitalism to flourish and function. Otherwise the management side becomes a monopoly.

"If capitalism is fair then unionism must be. If men have a right to capitalize their ideas and resources of their country, then that implies the right of men to capitalize their labor" - Frank Lloyd Wright

Amazing how many of you can't comprehend blasphemy and just react by preaching.

Well if that is preaching, then give me some of that old time religion.

 

[DBT]

The objective is to threaten the business in order to get more money.

Simple question: In what way is a strike not a deliberate action designed to disrupt a business's operation in order to get concessions?

Don't say it's because it's the only way to get what they want. The mugger points a gun at you because it's the only way to get what he wants. Is that ok?

Workers don't usually go on strike unless that is the only option left to them. As I said before, workers lose pay when they strike. Pay that many can ill afford to lose. They do it in the hope of improving their lot in the longer term.

Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

Your analogy fails. You ignore all explanations and respond on emotive terms. A strike is a last resort. It is a defense against the power of business and its interest to keep wage costs down.

 

[DBT]

Ok, so you're fine with a mugger sticking you up at gunpoint because he needs money?

Or are felonies only ok when you don't like the victim?

How about wage theft by employers?
Quote:
''Australia’s Fairwork Commission has so far this year examined more than a dozen cases of wage theft. Those cases involve hundreds of workers and millions of dollars in underpayments.

And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

A significant report on the exploitation of migrant workers in Australia has been published this month. After a two-year inquiry by the federal Migrant Workers’ Taskforce, the report concludes that wage theft is widespread. Possibly as many as half of all temporary migrant workers are being underpaid.''

It recommends that the effectiveness of the small claims process under the Fair Work Act be reviewed.

''It also recommends increasing penalties under the Fair Work Act. These include giving courts the power to impose an adverse publicity order, requiring an offending business to notify the public it has cheated workers; and for the most serious cases of exploitation, of course, it has suggested criminal sanctions.

For four high-risk industries – horticulture, meat processing; cleaning and security – the report recommends a National Labour Hire Registration Scheme. Companies failing to comply with workplace laws would face potential deregistration.''