Going on strike

[jcright]

novcncy,

It's not really about getting a better paying job...the question is whether striking would be biblical.

To answer your question...can they hire new secretaries? Yep. They won't hit the groun running though. They would spend a fortune in training though. Also, I do think that someone in my position would make more in the private industry. Certainly they make more in the community college.

I would also add that a PhD is probably overrated. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you can teach. I read the comments from the student evaluations, some of these people can't teach to save their life. On the other hand, we have people with master degrees who get excellent ratings...There are even some who are master candidates who have taught (in a pinch) and get better ratings. Therefore, I think they can be just as easily replaced.

I think respect should be a part of anyone's job...that prevents someone from taking advantage of you in one form or another. Anyhow, I would say that it's just as important for me to do my job as it is for the instructors to do their jobs. If that weren't the case (which would be demonstrated by elimination of the position, not replacement of the person) then I would see why that person's position wouldn't have the same merit.

 

[novcncy]

novcncy,

I would also add that a PhD is probably overrated. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you can teach. I read the comments from the student evaluations, some of these people can't teach to save their life. On the other hand, we have people with master degrees who get excellent ratings...There are even some who are master candidates who have taught (in a pinch) and get better ratings. Therefore, I think they can be just as easily replaced.

I think respect should be a part of anyone's job...that prevents someone from taking advantage of you in one form or another. Anyhow, I would say that it's just as important for me to do my job as it is for the instructors to do their jobs. If that weren't the case (which would be demonstrated by elimination of the position, not replacement of the person) then I would see why that person's position wouldn't have the same merit.

Couldn't agree with you more about the Ph D's being overrated.

I don't know about the resistance to being taken advantage of, though. What about the "if any man asks for your coat, give him your cloak also", or instead of walking one mile, walk two? Do you know the context behind the walking a mile bit? A Roman soldier could legally compel someone to carry his luggage exactly one Roman mile, and those soldiers took great joy in imposing that right on the Jews whenever possible. So when Jesus tells them not to walk just one mile, but two, what was he telling us?

Just some thoughts. I don't think we should always make ourselves punching bags, and allow ourselves to taken advantage of constantly. I just think that we value ourselves too highly, and are too selfish some times. I certainly do wish you well as you iron out all these things to think about. It's quite a load to carry, but I'm confident that in the end, you'll have grown throughout it all. Take care.

 

[Dmckay]

novcncy,

It's not really about getting a better paying job...the question is whether striking would be biblical.

To answer your question...can they hire new secretaries? Yep. They won't hit the groun running though. They would spend a fortune in training though. Also, I do think that someone in my position would make more in the private industry. Certainly they make more in the community college.

I would also add that a PhD is probably overrated. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you can teach. I read the comments from the student evaluations, some of these people can't teach to save their life. On the other hand, we have people with master degrees who get excellent ratings...There are even some who are master candidates who have taught (in a pinch) and get better ratings. Therefore, I think they can be just as easily replaced.

I think respect should be a part of anyone's job...that prevents someone from taking advantage of you in one form or another. Anyhow, I would say that it's just as important for me to do my job as it is for the instructors to do their jobs. If that weren't the case (which would be demonstrated by elimination of the position, not replacement of the person) then I would see why that person's position wouldn't have the same merit.

Did you agree to do your job for certain compensation? If you did, on what Biblical basis do you think that you can justify with holding the services you agreed to do for a set amount. You are trying to extort more for your services than you originally agreed to work for.

 

[arunma]

It's not a religious issue, but it is a faith issue. We are to work hard for our employers, the same way we would work for Christ (Colossians 3:23). We are to obey them (Ephesians 6:5). To go on strike violates those verses and if a person is going to do it, they best have a darned good reason, one that would please God.

Well again, seeing as how I'm not really a capitalist (please, no one call me a commie), I look at the other side of things. Masters (who today correspond to employers, since most societies don't have Roman-style slavery or servant-labor) are not to threaten their employees, and they must treat them fairly. When Saint Paul wrote that we are to obey our employers, he also instructed the employers to treat us fairly, and when that balance is upset, it's the worker's responsibility to demand fair and godly treatment. If God didn't desire for humans to peacefully demand fair treatment from their rulers, we wouldn't have even had the civil rights movement. For that matter, Paul would never have bothered asking the Roman authorities for freedom to preach Christianity.

I agree that labor unions shouldn't ask for unreasonably high wages. But that doesn't mean that labor unions shouldn't exist.

Christians shouldn't strike in my opinion.

Its a bad witness to your employees.

I think it's a far worse witness to not fight for equal treatment. Again, I realize that unions can become corrupt. But if the church unilaterally condemns labor unions, it sends people the message that Christ's church cares nothing for the oppressed (hey, maybe this is a religious issue after all).

Did you agree to do your job for certain compensation? If you did, on what Biblical basis do you think that you can justify with holding the services you agreed to do for a set amount. You are trying to extort more for your services than you originally agreed to work for.

But what about employers who do not appropirately adjust their employees' wages to compensate for inflation and cost-of-living increases? Employers also have a Biblical obligation to treat their workers fairly, don't you agree?

 

[Dmckay]

Well again, seeing as how I'm not really a capitalist (please, no one call me a commie), I look at the other side of things. Masters (who today correspond to employers, since most societies don't have Roman-style slavery or servant-labor) are not to threaten their employees, and they must treat them fairly. When Saint Paul wrote that we are to obey our employers, he also instructed the employers to treat us fairly, and when that balance is upset, it's the worker's responsibility to demand fair and godly treatment. If God didn't desire for humans to peacefully demand fair treatment from their rulers, we wouldn't have even had the civil rights movement. For that matter, Paul would never have bothered asking the Roman authorities for freedom to preach Christianity.

I agree that labor unions shouldn't ask for unreasonably high wages. But that doesn't mean that labor unions shouldn't exist.



I think it's a far worse witness to not fight for equal treatment. Again, I realize that unions can become corrupt. But if the church unilaterally condemns labor unions, it sends people the message that Christ's church cares nothing for the oppressed (hey, maybe this is a religious issue after all).



But what about employers who do not appropirately adjust their employees' wages to compensate for inflation and cost-of-living increases? Employers also have a Biblical obligation to treat their workers fairly, don't you agree?

Perhaps in some socialist utopia, (it isn't going to happen, by the way) but if the employer isn't a believer why would they even consider being bound by Biblical principles when many Christians can't consistantly follow them? Oh, I know, let's make a law that demands they do the right thing, but then, who decides what the right thing is?

 

[arunma]

Oh, I know, let's make a law that demands they do the right thing, but then, who decides what the right thing is?

How about God? God does decide right and wrong, after all.

Perhaps in some socialist utopia, (it isn't going to happen, by the way) but if the employer isn't a believer why would they even consider being bound by Biblical principles when many Christians can't consistantly follow them?

Why are workers held to Biblical standards, but not employers? Granted, we're all Christians, and we're talking about striking, so maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned. But if unbelieving employers get to treat their workers unfairly, do unbelieving employees get to strike? How about believing employers? Can we strike if they treat us unfairly?

By the way, what I'm about to say might sound irrelevant, but last time I expressed politically liberal beliefs on an Internet forum, other Christians started thinking that this liberality extended to my theology, and a few people assumed that I was some sort of godless pagan. So for those of you who (mistakenly) think that economics has anything to do with religion: yes, I do believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, Resurrection, and inerrency of the Scriptures, and I certainly consider myself a committed evangelical. All while being slightly opposed to capitalism!

 

[Dmckay]

How about God? God does decide right and wrong, after all.



Why are workers held to Biblical standards, but not employers? Granted, we're all Christians, and we're talking about striking, so maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned. But if unbelieving employers get to treat their workers unfairly, do unbelieving employees get to strike? How about believing employers? Can we strike if they treat us unfairly?

By the way, what I'm about to say might sound irrelevant, but last time I expressed politically liberal beliefs on an Internet forum, other Christians started thinking that this liberality extended to my theology, and a few people assumed that I was some sort of godless pagan. So for those of you who (mistakenly) think that economics has anything to do with religion: yes, I do believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, Resurrection, and inerrency of the Scriptures, and I certainly consider myself a committed evangelical. All while being slightly opposed to capitalism!

I don't hold all, of even many workers to Christian standards, only Christians. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Unless an employer or a laborer are believers, they have no ability to be able to understand or keep to Christian standards. Even most believers have a very hard time learning to walk in the Spirit and not by legalism.

Regarding your last statement, you might find it enlightening to study the first couple of years that the Pilgrims were in this country.

They tried to live by what they saw as Biblical standards, which amounted to socialism the way they did it. They almost starved to death. It wasn't until they changed to a more capitalist model that they started to thrive, and thus celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

Check it out, it is a matter of history.

 

[ZiSunka]

novcncy,

It's not really about getting a better paying job...the question is whether striking would be biblical.

To answer your question...can they hire new secretaries? Yep. They won't hit the groun running though. They would spend a fortune in training though. Also, I do think that someone in my position would make more in the private industry. Certainly they make more in the community college.

I would also add that a PhD is probably overrated. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you can teach. I read the comments from the student evaluations, some of these people can't teach to save their life. On the other hand, we have people with master degrees who get excellent ratings...There are even some who are master candidates who have taught (in a pinch) and get better ratings. Therefore, I think they can be just as easily replaced.

I think respect should be a part of anyone's job...that prevents someone from taking advantage of you in one form or another. Anyhow, I would say that it's just as important for me to do my job as it is for the instructors to do their jobs. If that weren't the case (which would be demonstrated by elimination of the position, not replacement of the person) then I would see why that person's position wouldn't have the same merit.

Government workers are often grossly underpaid. I was a landscape architect in government practice for 20 years and I got $26 dollars an hour, but private practice LA's with my experience and background are making $45 per hour and up. If you need more money, you may have to go to a private industry job. Government pay scales are set in stone and very very difficult to change without a literal act of congress.

 

[jcright]

Definitely some interesting thoughts. I did not know about the roman soldiers making people carry their stuff for a mile.
The union already had a contract when I was hired. Based on that, I guess I would say that it's okay to ask for more money since the contract is up. However, I don't think I should have to ask. I certainly shouldn't have to beg. I would think, for my loyalty, my services, etc., that they would be happy to increase my pay to at least what inflation has gone up by. If I wanted more, then I would think it's normal to negotiate with my boss. Prove to him how I've been an asset to the company and how I've gone above and beyond the expectations of my job and therefore deserve a little more. If I get outrageous, then I can see where they would say no. Anyhow, I think the company should be taking care of me while I'm taking care of the company. In fact, I think it's that lack of interest in employees that drives the good ones out and leaves the company with only bad ones and only opportunities to hire more bad ones (because the good ones will know the reputation). Then the company goes down hill. So, it's to their advantage to not take advantage of us.

Actually, this really isn't about money. It's more about respect. I know I could find a better paying job doing the same thing. But I don't really want to leave. I'd rather stay and help grow the business. However, I'm not going to be inclined to do so if I'm looked upon as a peon that can be extorted. In fact, I may end up quitting anyway. Although I would rather work by myself, I recognize how important it is to work as a team. But there's no "T" in peon. There's no "R"(espect) either.

So far, I'm finding the idea of not being yoked with unbelievers to be the strongest defense. Even if I agreed with them from a religious standpoint, I don't agree with theim on a business or political standpoint. I don't support the idea of "across the board" raise/benefit. I think it should be performance based. In fact, its my thought that we would get more respect if we did it that way. We'd certainly get rid of the deadwood around here.

 

[novcncy]

I don't hold all, of even many workers to Christian standards, only Christians. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Unless an employer or a laborer are believers, they have no ability to be able to understand or keep to Christian standards. Even most believers have a very hard time learning to walk in the Spirit and not by legalism.

Regarding your last statement, you might find it enlightening to study the first couple of years that the Pilgrims were in this country.

They tried to live by what they saw as Biblical standards, which amounted to socialism the way they did it. They almost starved to death. It wasn't until they changed to a more capitalist model that they started to thrive, and thus celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

Check it out, it is a matter of history.

Good point. The flaw with socialism is that man is inherently sinful. It may sound good in theory, but when you realize that man cannot help but be greedy, you can see the problem. Socialism is built on an assumption that no one will be greedy.

It was also pointed out that in the thread that we cannot expect employers or employees as a whole, to behave ethically. What we can expect, is for Christians to behave ethically, whether they are the employer or the employee. In fact, when Paul (and Peter) addressed servants (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1. Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18), there is no reason to assume that the masters were believers. It's also the other way wround, if you look at the passages addressed to masters. Actually, by the way Paul goes on to explain the servants behavior IF the master is a believer, it would seem to suggest that the believing master was the exception as opposed to the rule. The whole point of a Christian perspective in a master/servant relationship, regardless of which role that Christian holds, is to behave in such a way as to point the other party to Christ. Anyway, check out those verses, along with the context around them, and ask the Holy Spirit what he thinks