Back in Lincoln’s day, the Republicans really were about ‘trickle up’ economics. Henry Ford paid people enough to buy his cars. Now it’s “I can pay half the working class to kill the other half.”
Henry Ford did that as a business decision. He didn’t care about the workers.
He did it because people were quitting after working only a short time. Remember he didn’t invent the car, he invented the assembly line. Working hard wasn’t new. Working in a factory wasn’t new. But doing boring monotonous work was new.
I believe he also demanded that workers not drink during their time off, or other similar restrictions on private life. It was a well paying job, but it demanded a lot. He wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of his heart.
I wasn’t trying to present Ford as a hero of the working man. I was trying to show that Ford understood that workers are a resource, not a burden.
You’re right about him not wanting workers drinking. Two stories I’ve heard. The first is that he helped create Prohibition because he thought banning liquor would stop people from drinking. The other is that he helped start a lot of small banks. Workers were taking their paychecks to bars and getting them cashed there. When the bars closed, the workers needed a new place to get their money,
I can see the confusing jungle law like frontier justice is a term used for the lawlessness of the wilderness. If tiger is hungry and can overpower you, tiger eats you.
In this case, the labor force rises up like zombies and tears upper management apart, or feeds them into the machines, or beats them with big wrenches, if history tells. They may put it off by hiring strikebusters and police with dogs. The bloodier it starts, the bigger the fire.
Sooo, they want the crazy apes with opposable thumbs and the ability to persistence hunt any animal alive to band together and hunt them until they run over a cliff?
Because that sounds like a good plan at this point.
Poor babies. I've worked in a lot of places. I've never yet worked at, knew someone who worked at, or heard of a corporation that has a union that didn't "earn" the union by persistent and blatant worker abuse.
I'm confused after reading this? So during this strike, a court ordered the union to pay some money, instead the union moved its money into overseas accounts, and a politicians worked with MI5 to track these accounts down and freeze them?
Like I fully support the union, but I thought it was going to be something serious such as MI5 infiltrating the union and becoming agent provocateurs, this just seems rather tame and less shocking than I expected.
Yes the headline is click bait. Even though this comm has no rule against editorialising headlines I tend to not do that. If anyone suggests a better title I’ll change it.
Although your summary seems correct, it probably omits how vital funds were to the strike, how legal (seems like not very much) was taking help from MI5, and the point that’s also omitted from the article which is if the court decision to fine the union was legit in the very beginning.
I’m not familiar with anything related to that strike, but that very much looks like breaking checks and balances and going the totalitarian “we know better” way, even if not to the very depth of it
Where young women are encouraged to seek out positive role models for their own good, young men are frequently encouraged to seek out positive role models so that they treat women better.
theguardian.com
Hot