India Factory Workers Revolt, Kill Company President
forbes.com
forbes.com
>Workers at the Regency Ceramics factory in the India raided the home of their boss, and beat him senseless with led pipes after a wage dispute turned ugly.
Led pipes and "The India", seriously Forbes?
> Curfew and other civil orders were imposed in Yanam because of the uprising led to the murder of the Regency president.
> Eight Regency Ceramics workers were injured in police firing that followed [...]
And so on. I think that they might have forgotten to send this to the editor (not being sarcastic).
"Company president has police kill union boss, workers go on rampage and kill president".
Now, if you think this was some kind of routine police enforcement action that got out of hand and that the company boss had nothing to do with it, then I don't think you know how things work, especially in places like India. The police chief and top brass would most likely be part of the same social circles and would look out for each other's interests. In corrupt places, the power of the state is always readily available to the rich and powerful, whether it's quelling a labour dispute in India or a low-interest Fed borrowing window.
Now, when I first read the title I was struck that a company president would be killed by workers, but after reading the article, it suddenly makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?
Now that I think about it, it's also pretty sad that the killing of a labour activist doesn't surprise or shock me, but the killing of an executive does.
It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law.
If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?
"What's the problem?"
maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily?
"It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law."
If the rule of law allows for murder, then the rule of law is wrong and operating under it is no defence.
"If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him with a lathi, would you similarly object?"
yes? if the police have already caught him, what possible cause could they have for beating him unnecessarily?
Your version of the story may be correct, but you've presented no evidence of it.
Similarly, in the hypothetical I raised, I made no claim as to whether the gang leader was in custody. That's merely your assumption.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Reg...
You may be right that the police used excessive force, but you've presented no evidence of it. However, some force was clearly required.
That isn't true even in the US. I suggest you go and read on wiki about strike action which includes this helpful paragraph:
A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside the workplace to prevent or dissuade people from working in their place or conducting business with their employer. Less frequently workers may occupy the workplace, but refuse either to do their jobs or to leave. This is known as a sit-down strike.
And perhaps you can then go to the article on picketing, which is exactly what these guys were doing.
If the non-workers prevent others from conducting business with their employer, it's a blockade, and it's illegal. If they merely persuade, it's a picket, and legal.
In both the US and India, you do not have the right to use violence against the competition. It's illegal if you prevent people from entering a factory and undercutting you, it's illegal if you sabotage the trucks of your competitors, etc.
Further, a quick google search shows that sit-down strikes are illegal in the US and India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike
http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.ht...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Teamsters_Strike_of...
"The Rangarajan case simply ignores statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and an equal number of case laws laid down by larger benches that have recognized the right to strike. It also fails to consider International Covenants that pave the way for this right as a basic tenet of international labour standards."
and
"In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (v), Justice Ahmadi opined that "The Trade Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining strength would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate by adopting agitational methods such as 'work to rule', 'go-slow', 'absenteeism', 'sit-down strike', and 'strike'. This has been recognized by almost all democratic countries"."
In this case, cops are used to enforce that bosses control the factory, not the workers. But it could work the other way around.
And if the factory bosses were doing something illegal, the cops tried to stop them, and someone died in the scuffle, I would not immediately jump to the conclusion that the cops murdered him at the behest of the union.
It wouldn't take a lot to convince me - I'm generally very critical of cops, particularly in India. But some evidence is needed.
If the police have to disperse them "violently", then they suck as police and should be fired.
I'm not saying it's right, but different publications cater to different audiences and appropriately select articles and headlines that will garner attention from that audience.
* With the exception of Forbes' editors, who clearly deserve the bile posted. Led pipes? Really?
Their articles are mostly lousy. Bad headlines. Hardly any editing done on the story.
What happened? It used to be such a respectable magazine.
%)