Hacker News Reader

Comment by blisterpeanuts | Hacker News Reader

Would your dad have continued to have gainful employment, had he not tried to organize the drivers?

If so, it sounds as though it was his own actions that led to his financial predicament.

The other question that crossed my mind is, was he unable to find another job as a driver anywhere in Europe or the U.S. (wherever he was based)? It seems as though there has been a continuing shortage of long haul drivers in the U.S. at least. As far back as I can remember, about every other 18-wheeler I see has had a "drivers needed" sign prominently displayed.

View on HN

"If so, it sounds as though it was his own actions that led to his financial predicament."

Yes which is the very essence of the discussion here and why it makes sense to protect people trying to organize in some situations. Unless you think it's fair that he got released from his contract from trying to do that. In that case it just means we are politically in disagreement about what is fair and what isn't.

These weren't long haul drives, these where day to day deliveries very hard to do physically and got harder and harder as the company asked them to cover more and more on less and less time and for less and less pay.

And sure he found other work it just never paid enough to cover the expenses of having a family and a house to pay. He worked at times 3 different jobs a day just to cover.

It sounds like you're suggesting that his father deserved to be fired for attempting to support unionization. You can advocate for whatever you like, but understand that this position is in opposition to generations of workers-rights efforts.

No, I don't think he deserved to be fired, but his actions did precipitate his getting fired.

Who are you people, displaying such cavalier ignorance of labor rights movements and dynamics?

There would be more people employed, if not for "labor rights movements".

Look at the Longshoremen. They basically closed off ports in the U.S. to any workers but their chosen elite few. How is that in line with "labor rights"?

What about theatrical unions? I have been in theater, and the guys running the lights and curtains charged a fortune by the hour. They made it prohibitive for small nonprofit theatrical companies of which I was a member to put on shows in the big city. They wouldn't even raise the curtain a second time to standing ovation. Bastards.

What about the drivers' unions in New York City? My grandfather had to close down his shoe jobber business back in the Sixties because of them and their onerous rules. It basically killed him.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for unions or union organizing. For all their songs and high flying rhetoric, they have caused untold damage to our economy and our society.

> There would be more people employed, if not for "labor rights movements".

That metric (number of people employed) does not really mean anything by itself.

Here are more ideas that could lead to "more people being employed":

* make child labor legal again

* get rid of work safety regulations

* remove minimum wage

* make indentured servitude legal

just like there are plenty of bad companies out there, there are bad unions too. That doesent mean unionizing is a bad thing. But I guess you think its ok for companies to legally lobby congress to get their whishes and needs legalized but not for normal workers or contractors to. Sorry but i have no sympathy for such a view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com