Talk:Strikebreaker

Start class

I think I made a good start on this article. It definitely covers international law, and gives examples of many important national laws on the issue. However, it needs a historical section (which should cover the U.S., which has tended to use strikebreakers far more than any other industrialized country, and notable examples of their use in other nations) and some statistics on the use of strikebreaking. Somewhere down the line, it might be useful to develop "List of strikebreaking companies", which could provide historical (such as the Pinkertons in the U.S.) as well as modern examples (such as U.S. Nursing Corp.) of strikebreaking agencies. - Tim1965 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm this part:

"Folklore in Bristol, England, suggests that this name for strikebreakers arose in the 15th or 16th century when bubonic plague was common. Workers refused to clear away the dead bodies without higher pay and better protection. Soldiers were deployed who subsequently became infected with the plague and developed scabs on their faces—hence the term "scab"."

It seems like an urban legend and doesn't have a citation.

--Gyrcompass (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The part about international law is largely irrelevant, as it tells more about the right to strike than the right to work during a strike. What I would also like to read more about here is what the strikebreaker risks, any documentation on violence or threats towards strikebreakers in a Western country during the last 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan

The article states Japanese law bans the use of strikebreakers, but Berlitz is currently hiring it seems, despite ongoing legal action, although the company website denies it..?andycjp (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Companies break the law all the time. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it—strikebreaking cannot be outlawed, since any such law would be effectively superceded by employer′s right to hire new personnel. You see, any company has a right to hire new employees whenever it wants; firing is regulated, but hiring is not and may not be so even theoretically, as it would be illogical and in breach with human rights and common sense. Therefore, when some employees are striking, the company is still free to hire new ones as it sees fit, just like it is with no strikes in process. Otherwise one would have to prove that a new hire is actually a strikebreaker and not a regular worker, which is next to impossible. Consider an example: the company has a vacancy and is about to hire; then a strike happens; the company is still completely free to proceed with that hire—what could possibly prevent it and for what reason (especially since this new hire is not anyhow connected to the strike)? Likewise, it is free to hire strikebreakers using exactly the same right and procedure. The essential (natural) right to hire supercedes any possible law against strikebreakers. And even if someone is to try to perform a legal action against a company hiring strikebreakers, they would have to prove that each new hire is in fact a strikebreaker and not a regular employee upon a vacancy or planned staff expansion, which is virtually impossible, partly because there′s no precise definition of a strikebreaker—a strikebreaker can always be masqueraded as a regular hire. Remember, each new hire is deemed fully legitimate unless proven otherwise as per the presumption of innocence, and this fact alone makes prevention of strikebreaking nearly impossible because of overwhelming difficulty of finding irrefutable proof. 95.220.174.123 (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently involved in a labour dispute in Japan right now. I edited the article to remove the claim that strikebreaking is illegal as I know from my own experience that it is not the case. We are organising strikes and doing our best to ensure the strikes aren't scabbed but nobody here including the company, my union, our lawyers or the courts and labour commission would claim strikebreaking is illegal. Tim1965 quite correctly reverted my edit as the material was backed by a cite and I had no corresponding cite to back my own claim. The problem is that I'm not able to verify the cite actually does back the claim. If anybody has access to the book in question, I would be most thankful if they could consult it to verify the claim. For obvious reasons, it's difficult for me to find cites making the case that strikebreaking is legal. The law remains silent on the list of activities that are not prohibited. Gest (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on social attitudes

User 94.243.95.38 added a section on "Social attitudes" on April 16, 2010. While a good section, it contained a number claims which needed citations -- and had none. Many of the statements in the section were challengeable, and needed citations. Additionally, while the section did a decent job of outlining negative social attitudes to strikebreaking, it did not survey attitudes in favor of it (if any). And while the section was all right in terms of an international scope, it primarily looked at Commonwealth nations. In conclusion, I agree that this section is needed in the article. I encourage someone to reconstitute this section, with lots of citations. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

POV (or other problem)

The excessive discussion of the right to strike in both international and national law gives the impression that the article tries to attack strikebreakers through the faulty logic that they would be contrary to the right to strike.

Even should this impression be false, the article is still so disastrously out of focus that it needs to be corrected. 94.220.247.191 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Says you? Or says sources? Merely asserting that the article has NPOV problems is not enough. You have to be specific. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. If this were a better article, it would discuss the strikebreaker issue in far more countries than it does now. The article does not "attack" strikebreaking in any way. The article clearly lays out what various countries say about strikebreaking, and no more. Since you cannot define "disastrously out of focus" nor can you define "excessive" discussion of international law, the conclusion must be that it does not suffer from NPOV problems. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above response. This article does not suffer from NPOV issues. ValenShephard 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

More specifically: Wikipedia guidelines on article neutrality require editorial neutrality, which "should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common." It requires a "disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." In this regard, the article clearly does not violate these or other guidelines in the neutrality policy. Your second claim, 94.220.247.191, appears to be one of synthesis. That is, because the article a) places the issue of strikebreakers within the larger context of the right to strike and b) cites certain country laws which regulate or ban the use of strikebreakers, the article creates a synthesis that leads the reader to assume strikebreakers are a "bad thing." The aforementioned neutrality guidelines clearly call for articles to ensure that topic is placed in context. This article does so; after all, strikebreakers cannot exist where no right to strike exists. And the right to strike mentioned in international law has led to discussion of strikebreakers and their proper role by the nations involved. Reporting the outcomes of these international discussions does not violate NPOV, nor does it violate bans on synthesis. Indeed, to remove the international context from this article would violate Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Wikipedia defines synthesis as the combination of "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Since you, 94.220.247.191, do not cite any such examples of synthesis, it is difficult to respond. Nonetheless, I allege that the article does not engage in any synthesis. Rather, it neutrally states what the status of strikebreakers is in the international law and countries cited. One might argue that only countries where strikebreaking is banned or restricted are mentioned, but of the seven countries mentioned two discuss that strikebreaking is unrestricted and permitted. No one is preventing any contributor from adding properly cited information about strikebreaking in any other country. (I added the information I have access to. All Wiki contributors are asked to assume good faith; in doing so, you must assume that I did not self-censor any information which mentions strikebreaking in a positive or unrestricted way. Indeed, I added the information about the U.S. and U.K., which indicates I did not self-censor.)

"Out of focus" is not a term Wikipedia uses. This article was rated Start-class as of November 2007, and no appreciable expansion has occurred since then. Start-class articles are not expected to be comprehensive. Clearly, this article needs additional information on the economics of strikebreaking, social attitudes toward strikebreaking, strikebreaking companies, the history of strikebreaking, and more. Feel free to add that. Lack of such discussion does not, however, mean the article violates NPOV or synthesis. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the above amounts to sophistry and unconstructive behaviour at best---grossly incorrect logic at worst. (And much of it, in my subjective impression, seems to bend the rules of WP contrary to their spirit.) This is an article about strikebreakers---and it should deal with strikebreakers. The right to strike is a related topic, but is highly secondary and should be given space accordingly.

The current state of the article is (irrespective of intent, Hanlon's Razor, whatnot) not satisfactory.

I note that the unilateral removal of a POV-tag is not something that should be done. Replace it with a tag more suitable, if you wish, but do not remove it. Further, do not go off in an insulted huff, but handle crique in a constructive manner. 94.220.247.191 (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please do not assume that I'm in a "huff", you should assume good faith and not accuse other contributors of sophistry or imply stupidity through literary references. So far, several arguments have been laid out (above) which you have not dealth with, and two contributors agree that the article does not suffer from NPOV issues. Removal of the tag is therefore, at this time, appropriate. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-strikebreaking law in Canada

The text state that Canada have federal industrial relations laws that strongly regulate the use of strikebreakers. That's not true: only two provinces in Canada have laws who regulate strikebreaking use. In the federal Canada Labour Code. The use of strikes breakers is allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.199.183 (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's great. You need to find a source that says this. By the way, the article does not claim that Canadian federal law bans strikebreakers. It says that Canadian federal law allows them but heavily regulates their use. There's a big difference. (C'est grand. Vous devez trouver une source qui indique ceci. D'ailleurs, l'article ne réclame pas que la loi fédérale canadienne interdit des strikebreakers. Il indique que la loi fédérale canadienne les permet mais règle fortement leur utilisation. Il y a une grande différence.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Right to strike?

I don't get the idea that workers somehow need to have a right to strike...they're not indentured servants, they don't have to work if they don't want to, what's the problem with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.121.235 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You need a right to break the contracts that you "willingly and freely" signed, that is the right to strike. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If anything, the right not to strike is more apposite to the article - should we tie this in to closed shops and similar attempts by unions to restrict the right to work? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Scab

Article is correct that scab is derogatory, but...it's also far more common in popular speech than 'strikebreaker'. Implying that the word is only used "sometimes" is borderline not-NPOV (implying that 'scab' is a fringe viewpoint). Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but given how hot the rhetoric gets on both sides of anything to do with organised labour, articles like this need to be checked carefully for neutrality.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntClubJoe (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• What country are you talking about? This article covers the whole world. I agree that "scab" is used more in the U.S. (especially in the labor movement) than anywhere else in the world. But I don't believe it is used much outside of the U.S. and Great Britain. Furthermore, even in the U.S. (where I live) the term "scab" is used primarily inside the labor movement and the progressive press. I can't think of a mainstream American newspaper that will use the term "scab"; they use "temporary replacement worker" or some similar euphemism. Among the people I know (an admittedly very limited sample), the only ones who use the term "scab" are those involved in the labor movement. (Most other people don't even think about strikes.) If it's common in popular speech, then there ought to be a citation that says so, so that the article abides by WP:CITE. I guess what I'm groping toward is this: "Scab" is not a common term any more, because strikes are not common any more. When strikes are talked about, "scab" tends to be used mostly by progressive media and the labor movement (its leaders and members), not by the mainstream or right-wing press. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Strikebreakers are not people who simply refuse to join a strike

I think it's incorrect to define a strikebreaker as someone who simply refuses to join a strike and regularly goes to work. A strikebreaker is rather someone who tries to sabotage a strike. In a democracy, the right not to join a strike is as holy as that of joining it, and to make reprisals against someone who doesn't join a strike is a crime against freedom.

Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.37.166 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Percy the Small Engine

Does anyone know why the See Also section contains a link to Percy the Small Engine? Neither this page nor that one seem to mention anything that suggests they are related to one another. If someone knows why they are related, could they update the relevant page to show this? If not it seems reasonable to remove the link on this page. --Avalanchian (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably just unnoticed vandalism. It happens more often than you’d think. — HTGS (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The answer can be found e.g. here: "The Fat Controller brought him to Sodor when there was an engine strike due to a shortage of shunting engines. The bigger engines initially tried to bully him, but Percy soon showed that he was more than capable of standing up for himself." So somewhat frivolous and can be safely removed, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition of strikebreaker

The definition part is not NPOV. As you have included Germany in this article, the definition ist flat out wrong: "A strikebreaker (sometimes called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike. " I have personally experienced at least two strikes or warn strikes in different companies and this is not a realistic view of what an actual strike is. First of all, not every worker is unionized, so in bigger companies, there will be many workers who will lose their wages, if they were to participate in the strike. Secondly, due to the way work is contracted a lot of the workers are not even employed by the company where they work. They cannot participate in a strike. Thirdly, there are reasons to be or not to be in a union. There is not a general animosity between people that are unionized and people that are not. Also, every single worker is an individual. A vote of more than 90% pro strike is considered very high approval, which means that even 10% opposed is still a good result. So, from the onset it is absolutely clear that not everyone will participate. Also, from the onset it is usually never intended to have everyone in a location go on strike. It is a lot cheaper to only strike where it really matters and within the law, this is used --> pinpoint strike: it is the normal type of strike So, working while others strike is the norm, not the exception. The strikes I witnessed were like this: The production workers of a plant or of a certain part of the plant go on strike with high participation, but there will still be a small number of people working there producing at very low rates. I have not seen any workers from subcontractors working there, idk how that is handled, I am sure there are laws for it in Germany. People with office jobs generally worked. Some of them ran out of work quickly though, because their work was strongly depending on production (billing, transportation, quality paperwork, production engineering etc.) This hurts the strikebound company twice, because not only are they not producing at the desired level, they are also paying people for no work. Even, if the (publicly announced) intention was to have everyone in a plant strike, it is very well understood that a lot of the office workers hurt a company more, when they continue to show up and collect their wages, instead of having to be paid from the union's treasury. Per definition in this article, they would be strikebreakers (scabs, blacklegs), while of course no one who actually understands the plant's processes would ever call them this. I have heard the term strikebreaker being used for people who leave their office jobs and then pick up the work in the procuction facilities. And I have seen people do this. Realistically, only few people are even able to do this, though. Because in modern plants, a high degree of knowledge is needed to run the production. So this is something that only a production engineer or people that have recently changed position from production to other jobs can actually do. Also, you need access to unlock functions, and usually passwords, keys etc. that might not be available for people outside of the group that strikes, depending on individual decisions of key personnel. So, if machines have disturbances, this sort of strikebreaking comes to a quick end, not only due to lack of knowledge, but also due to lack of access. The ways to deal with disturbances are limited. Machine by machine the production comes to lower and lower outputs. I suspect that this also practically limits the possibility of using strike brakers in modern times.

In order to improve this article, I propose the following: - Mark the definition in the beginning as "historically" - Link to articles "strike" and related articles (there should probably be an article on pinpoint strikes, if someone could write it) - include the fact that a person is only conceived as "strikebreaker", if their work/ job undermines the strike effort. (As described, for a lot of production dependent jobs, it actually helps, if the person shows up for work, even if they would offically is supposed to be part of the strike. By doing this they might even circumvent the laws prohibiting pinpoint strikes and enable a pinpoint strike, where there would not be one.) - try to establish links to modern actual strikes and actual strike breakers - if there is a source for this, maybe mention that strike breaking in modern production and modern societies might actually purely not exist for practical reasons (high employment rates, highly qualified workers would be required that just do not exist, training periods for jobs long, trainers not available, etc., you might actually need people with certificates required by law that are just not available (most prominent examples are pilot, air traffic controller and train engineer strikes)) After all, all "simple" jobs do not exist anymore in western industrial societies, e.g. the textiles and shoes production has long been outsourced to Asian countries. Only highly automated production jobs have been kept. This is completely different from the time of 2nd industrial revolution in the US, with completely different requirements for worker qualification and unemployment rates that would make workers more easily interchangeable. - the role of e.g. Pinkerton in the history of strike breaking Best regards, Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:2C40:87C:FC64:B25F:D10C:D899 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)