It would take too long to write a treatise on economic history documenting the transition from feudalism to capitalism and it would be deleted for being off topic.
Although such an academic approach might be preferable to resorting to high school debating tactics.
However, it is not hyperbole to state that it is organised labour, and it's preparedness to take industrial action, which is entirely responsible for the working conditions which we take for granted today.
The question of whether employers would give workers decent conditions out of goodwill is not a hypothetical one. It is not a question of belief.
It is a question which can be answered in two ways. First, through a historical comparison.
We have seen what working conditions are like without unions and industrial action. That was responsible for the deadly mines and factories of the 19th century.
The second is through a contemporary international comparison. In all countries where organised labour (unions) are weak, working conditions are worse.
Since my learned friend dislikes hyperbole, I won't resort to the extreme examples such as the UAE and Qatar.
Instead I will cite the example of the USA where many workers subsist almost if not entirely on tips, and the minimum wage is around $7.
This injustice is not only bad for workers, it is bad for society. It leads to levels of inequality which are unsustainable. The current state of politics in the USA confirms this, with the working and middle classes losing faith in the political establishment and turning out of desperation to Bernie Sanders on the left and Donald Trump on the right. Ultimately, it leads to violence and revolution.
When I pointed out that workers were legally entitled to strike, and that it was wrong to characterise this as "refusing to accept the umpire's decision" I was not arguing against a straw man.
I was arguing against this direct statement:
Here
we go again as this union decides to make the public pay with long queues and travel disruption to us the flying public, instead of mediation and accepting the umpires decision.
This is factually incorrect because protected industrial action is part of the negotiation process PRIOR TO the umpire (FWC) making a decision.
The right to strike is not a separate issue to the right to cause inconvenience to the public. If a strike had no impact, it would not be an effective tactic.
If you are a bus driver you have options such as refusing to collect fares which negatively impact the employer but are beneficial to the public.
Border Force staff don't have that option. They can't let people in or out without the standard immigration checks.
We are lucky they don't seek to establish a picket line and bring international travel to a complete halt.
If you can think of an effective tactic which would impact the government without impacting the travelling public at all, please suggest it.
But if your only point is that you don't like unions, or working people, or strikes in general, then please just say that, and enjoy your KFC.
