Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tom_ | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

tom_

Is "scabs" not editorialisation? It's rarely used other than in a derogatory fashion.

View on HN

The neutral descriptive term for a bad thing still tends to be colored negatively. E.g. murderer.

A “scab” is a person who works for a company when other people are trying to extort that company for higher wages.

The “scab” is fine with the current wage.

Scab is definitely a derogatory term for a non union worker.

Striking isn't extortion. Same as capitalists trying to keep their costs as close to zero as possible isn't extortion.

Yeah I agree this word has a negative connotation but I’m not sure if another one.

They’re trying to collectively quit working at the same time (and use government power to force the company not to actually terminate them) as a way of pressuring a company to raise their wages.

It feels like holding a company hostage? Like for instance a protection racket: this feels identical (pay us or you lose your business) is engaging in the same thing, but feels “worse”.

I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement. If it was just “we aren’t willing to work for that wage anymore”, that’s just bargaining.

If you decided to extend the argument then allow me to extend it even more: any legislation or agreement or marriage or just anything applies - once you have two parties then one is holding the other "hostage". Sounds ridiculous right? Well, because it is. Once you have some leverage - by sake of having money or unions - you use it. Just like Tesla holds "hostages" his employees, they hold "hostage" the company for contract conditions. Hostages everywhere, if you want so, because neither the company nor the employees live in a void.

> and use government power to force the company not to actually terminate them

Difficulty: companies, in any legal sense, only exist at the pleasure of the people's government in the first place.

> I think the thing that makes this extortion for me is the government involvement.

Sure, let's get them totally out....

I feel like your outlook implies a commitment to an American ideology where the company and capitalist has all the power, and the worker has almost no rights but to conform. People don’t exist in a vacuum, and they’re free to work together to collectively bargain for better terms and conditions. It’s not extortion or hostage taking, and even if it were, the company is also hostage taking by having that worker commit their life to fulfilling their obligation to the company by turning up every day and working for that company’s cause, in return for a small share of the revenue generated. I feel that ultimately your metaphors are being slightly mixed by thinking in terms of hostages and extortion. If you think in terms of communities of people and mutuality then the metaphor doesn’t work as well. If Tesla can’t get people from that locale to want to work for them, then they’re not going to be able to operate there. If they break the strike in the name of profits, workers at the city and the power company will see their friends and families made unemployed, and become reluctant to keep the lights on or the street free of debris. You’re dealing with a country and situation that has strong worker rights, and the reason they’re strong is that they keep solidarity with their values in the face of such profit-driven capitalistic behaviour, and there’s a finite resource of people who can be shipped in by Tesla to break this strike even though right now it’s a small issue. Happy workers don’t want to strike and not get paid, and discontent spreads much more rapidly than quiet contentment.

You have nuked what may have been a credible comment by comparing the demands of organized labor to extortion.

I was about to post this exact question. Yes, they are often known as scabs, but that's an editorial decision by the submitter because the article doesn't mention them as scabs. Nor do the workers in the article.

I initially put "strikebreakers", then I changed it to "scabs" as more people might be familiar with that term, then I changed it yet again to put both terms to be extra clear.

I wasn't aware that "scabs" is more of a derogatory term than "strikebreakers", but then the idea itself for me is derogatory so maybe I'm not the best person to judge.

FWIW: I changed the title to just have "strikebreakers" in it now.

Personally I’m more familiar with the term scab than strikebreaker. I know scab is a (usually new) worker crossing a picket line, but without context I’d assume a strikebreaker is a “consultant” whose job is to break the picket line itself.

Apparently they mean the same thing though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

According to Google Translate (and OP's comment), the title should be "The strike escalated on Monday - 'Tesla has brought people here'"

I mean, 'strikebreakers' is also derogatory. 'Scabs' has the advantage that it's relatively unambiguous; 'strikebreakers' usually means scabs, but is also sometimes used to mean consulting companies etc who strategise to break strikes, or, in the bad old days, hired thugs to intimidate workers.

whatever word they use will become derogatory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com