# Christians and Striking



## scottmaciver (Dec 2, 2011)

Following the recent strike action in protest of government cuts to public pensions, the issue of whether or not Christians should strike has come to mind. As we live in a democracy where we have freedom of speech, it is legitimate to make your views known so that we can go on strike. 

However should Christians go on strike? We are told to be subject to those who are in authority over us (Romans 13) unless it conflicts with the Word (Acts 5:29). Is it ever legitimate to demand our rights?


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2011)

It is, I think, legitimate to demand one's rights within the limits allowed by law.


----------



## Christopher88 (Dec 2, 2011)

We live in a country that by law allows the freedom of speech and right to public assembly ( so long as its not violent) 
The Christian is not going against the law of the country which the government swore by. If a Christian wishes to practice his country laws, than by all means do.


----------



## Christoffer (Dec 2, 2011)

As I see it this would depend on what kind of contract you have with your employer. If you don't like it you can always try to negotiate. Or quit. 

I don't know how the laws look in other countries but here in Finland the employeer cannot fire strikers. If that wouldn't be the case I see nothing wrong with striking. It would be balanced, the employer could then fire you and bring in some other people. I cannot see how using the strong arm of the state to claim positive rights is ever justified.

We had a general strike for senior officials (of which I am one) in Finland about one month ago and I started thinking about these issues. Strikes can be really bizarre, people you normally work alongside with suddenly guard the gates and stop people from going to work.


----------



## jambo (Dec 2, 2011)

I believe it is legitimate for Christian to go on strike, although I would be loathe to do so. In an official strike you give notice and receive no pay so you are not defrauding your employer in any way. I would never dream of going on strike simply to obtain an increase in salary but I might consider it if I felt there was a health and safety issue involved or if the employer was tramping over the rights of the workers. I believe you can stand up for your rights as employers have a duty to their employees which is sometimes overridden in order to meet targets, take shortcuts, make unreasonable demands on the workers etc

For those, like myself, who work in the private sector strikes are not really an issue as it tends to affect the public sector. It was also much bigger years ago when there were a number of nationalised industries whose unions would have called a strike at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Tim (Dec 2, 2011)

jambo said:


> In an official strike you give notice and receive no pay so you are not defrauding your employer in any way.



I understand the point, but wouldn't there be a sense in which you are indeed harming your employer? Perhaps defrauding is not the proper word, but if everyone in the plant walks off for weeks, and orders don't get shipped, and the warehouse gets backed up, customers don't get their orders...doesn't this harm everyone between the employer and customer?

What is the law regarding official strikes? Is this permissible even when the employer has been providing the employee what was agreed upon at hiring time?


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

What would Amos say?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 2, 2011)

> Exodus 20
> 
> 17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.





> Colossians 3
> 
> 22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;


.



> Ephesians 6
> 
> 5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
> 
> ...





> I Peter 2
> 
> 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
> 
> ...





> Deuteronomy 5
> 
> 21Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

Are we called to submit to tyranny and oppression?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 2, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Are we called to submit to tyranny and oppression?



See Romans 13 for the way the Apostle Paul admonished Christians under the (tyrannical and oppressive) Roman government of the first century.

Is the violent act of "strike" an act of tyranny and oppression? Is disrupting the property owners contracts with others that?

Is an employee free to quit an employer?

Is there any example for the Christian, in say, our Lord's example, of Him submitting to tyranny and oppression? Did he put up with abuse, and mistreatment?

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> I Peter 2
> 
> 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

Hmmmm, seems to me like this thread is a little too high on Rush Limbaugh and little to low on RJ Rushdoony. Unions are a means of ministering to the needy. Submitting to the yoke of heathen oppression is no noble calling.


----------



## Tim (Dec 2, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Unions are a means of ministering to the needy



Please explain.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 

The means of charity.


----------



## Tim (Dec 2, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
> Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
> 
> The means of charity.



Sorry, I don't see the connection.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

Must one withhold charity from the poor until they become poor?


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Are we called to submit to tyranny and oppression?



Oddly enough, yes. However, if one has recourse to legal means to remedy one's problems, then one is warranted in taking it. Unions/strikes are a means of renegotiating contracts legally. Unions provide workers with leverage in the negotiation of better conditions.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 2, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > Are we called to submit to tyranny and oppression?
> ...



Specifically, no; we are not called to injustice or subservience to unrighteousness. Legal means do not dictate religious unction.


----------



## Philip (Dec 2, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> we are not called to injustice or subservience to unrighteousness.



We are not called to injustice. We are, however, called to submit to duly constituted legal authority as long as it does not violate conscience to do so. Even in cases of injustice, the mandate that we are given in Scripture seems to be civil disobedience and never open revolt, unless there is violation of political sovereignty (e.g. the judges).


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > we are not called to injustice or subservience to unrighteousness.
> ...



Excellent distinction, how then does one parse duly constituted authority from unrighteousness as regards to ones conscience? Amos has much to say regarding our wicked age.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Excellent distinction, how then does one parse duly constituted authority from unrighteousness as regards to ones conscience?



Established by precedent. The first-century Christians were called to submit to the Roman authorities rather than engaging in open revolt.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent distinction, how then does one parse duly constituted authority from unrighteousness as regards to ones conscience?
> ...



Lawful striking is entirely lawful for the Believer and is not the sort of revolt the scriptures forbid. As a matter of fact, failing to demonstrate adequate solidarity with fellow employees is likely a poor witness and fails to subscribe to the commandments. If it is an unlawful strike or wildcat strike, I'd agree with you that the Romans passage has application.


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> As a matter of fact, failing to demonstrate adequate solidarity with fellow employees is likely a poor witness and fails to subscribe to the commandments.



CJ, sorry, I am having difficulty seeing the scriptural connections you are trying to make. A few posts back, you suggested that a strike is an issue of charity. Yet, I fail to see how this is so. Certainly charity (a voluntary giving) cannot be the issue at hand when we are discussing the contractual agreement between two parties that exchange work and various forms of compensation.

And, now, here you claim that failing to go along with fellow employees who are striking somehow violates the commandments (you used the word subscribe (?)). I assume you are referring to the Ten Commandments? Exactly which commandment is being violated?


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Lawful striking is entirely lawful for the Believer and is not the sort of revolt the scriptures forbid.



I would agree---as I said, legal recourse.


----------



## satz (Dec 3, 2011)

When the bible speaks of submission to authority, it does not just refer to government authority but the authority of masters over servants as well. Unions going on strike may not be violating government authority, but they are violating the authority of the employers, which is something which should be considered soberly as well.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Mark, while there is certainly an analogy between the servant/master relationship and the employer/employee relationship, the fact is that the latter has far more wiggle room. Striking is, in fact, a legal mechanism for renegotiating what is, in essence a contractual relationship. It is, as CJ suggests, a way of loving one's fellow employees: it is saying "look, we want to continue working here, but we would also like higher pay and/or benefits."


----------



## satz (Dec 3, 2011)

Phillip,

What about loving your employer? Isn't a strike a way to black mail an employer into doing what he does not want to do? 

The bible says christians are to obey their masters because in serving their masters they are actually serving Christ. The bible does not link this obedience to the fact that the slaves were property. Even though employees are not the property of their masters, they still should obey, because they are still serving Christ when they serve their employers. 

I think there is a tendency on this issue for Christians to see it as a "rich vs poor" issue and assume God sides with the poor (i.e those going on strike). But it is also a authority vs rebellion issue and the bible teaches that God values authority very highly and expects it to be protected and respected.

Also, strikes may be legal, but its not really clear if that state of affairs is something that the bible would approve off. 



> Eccl 10:5There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:
> 
> 6Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
> 
> 7I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

satz said:


> What about loving your employer?



Is it loving to allow him to continue to pay his employees less than the actual vaalue of their labour? If he is not paying them a fair wage, what is the loving thing to do?



satz said:


> Isn't a strike a way to black mail an employer into doing what he does not want to do?



How would it be blackmail, exactly? It's a means of bargaining and renegotiating of contracts. Remember that unlike government, the relationship between employer and employee is a contract relationship, which may be renegotiated at any point.



satz said:


> Even though employees are not the property of their masters, they still should obey, because they are still serving Christ when they serve their employers.



Fine, but does this mean, then, that if one is dissatisfied with one's employer, that there is never Biblical grounds for quitting? If a better job presents itself, am I never justified in taking it? After all, my current employer (authority) wouldn't like that and wants me to stay on, right?



satz said:


> Also, strikes may be legal, but its not really clear if that state of affairs is something that the bible would approve off.



The state of affairs that the Bible would approve of is one where strikes are unnecessary.


----------



## jambo (Dec 3, 2011)

Tim said:


> jambo said:
> 
> 
> > In an official strike you give notice and receive no pay so you are not defrauding your employer in any way.
> ...



The discussion has moved on since I last logged on, but to answer the point. There are very few strikes which are terminal. As I said I would never strike in order to get more pay but would consider striking (as the very last resort) if it was over a health and safety issue. Some employers take shortcuts and although they may be found liable, you as the worker are also responsible. 

In order for the strike to be official the union must ballot its members. If the majority decide to strike then the union informs the employer that on such and such a date there will be strike action. No one, whether they are in the union or otherwise, is compelled to strike or work. If those steps are not taken then the strike is unofficial and under the law comes into a different category. An official strike is legal and workers cannot be sacked; an unofficial strike is not protected by law and workers may be sacked. Although in this country there are few strikes (compared to the 1970s) and very few unofficial strikes 

It would seem to me that a work to rule is often more effective than a strike.


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> It is, as CJ suggests, a way of loving one's fellow employees: it is saying "look, we want to continue working here, but we would also like higher pay and/or benefits."



What if said employee is content and wishes to continue working under the same conditions/benefits? Is he obligated in some way to "love" his fellow employees and strike with them? I say no. How is this an appropriate application of love? Some are content and some are discontent. And the contented people must go along with the discontented people in order to show that they love them? 

In such a case, the non-striking employee has his voice taken away from him because he is expected to go along with the rest of the people who will not argue for his point of view.

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

What ever happened to an individual being given pay and benefits according to his own level of service provided to the company?


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2011)

Tim said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > As a matter of fact, failing to demonstrate adequate solidarity with fellow employees is likely a poor witness and fails to subscribe to the commandments.
> ...



Hi Tim,

The hope of a strike is to gain some advantage for the employees. Employee concerns can be quite significant, ultimately having a bearing on the employees ability to provide for their family. Charity has manifold applications and meanings, not necessarily just "giving money," charity is a form of love, as we see translated in the AV. To love our neighbors is our highest obligation to man. If I am union and break rank with my fellow members, I weaken our union. Think of the secular unions as a type of church and then consider how those union members ought to especially love one another. 

The road to poverty or economic hardship can be one of many events, not just one cataclysmic episode.


----------



## Tim (Dec 3, 2011)

I understand what you are saying, CJ. And the charity=love word from the KJV did cross my mind, so I am understand how you are using that word. I just don't agree with your application of love/charity to this situation. 

I think it is a bit too far to consider a union in a similar way to the church. For one, a union is not always a voluntary thing. I have worked jobs where I wished that I wasn't in a union, but the job was union, so I had to be in the union - there was no option to my understanding. Secondly, I don't see how "loving neighbors" requires me to go along with something with which I disagree - walking off the job and yet somehow expecting that I can't be fired.

By the way, I am all for petitioning the employer - there is nothing wrong with that. But when a group of people exercise their might by refusing to work until they get what they want - I don't see how this is "loving" to anyone involved. Remember that the OP is about striking, not about being sensitive and caring about economic hardship. The OP is about the _manner_, rather than the _reason_ of the petition.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Tim said:


> What ever happened to an individual being given pay and benefits according to his own level of service provided to the company?



That's why unions are legal.


----------



## Edward (Dec 3, 2011)

satz said:


> Unions going on strike may not be violating government authority, but they are violating the authority of the employers, which is something which should be considered soberly as well.



But to the extent that the strike is lawful, then the employer is a subject to the labor laws the same as the employee. So to the extent that the employer is trying to discourage the lawful act of the employee, it is the employer, and not the employee who is violating the commandment.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Edward said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Unions going on strike may not be violating government authority, but they are violating the authority of the employers, which is something which should be considered soberly as well.
> ...



"Lawful"?

What is your definition- is this a biblical term?

Are we saying it is "lawful" for servants to collectively interfere with the contracts, the livelihood, the property of their master who owns that property? 

Is it "lawful" because the servant demands that more of the owner's property be given to the servant or the servant will shut down the owner's livelihood? 

Is this the way authority works in the Kingdom of God?

Can you cite an example where Scripture demonstrates the servant has this authority over property that belongs to another?

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> The state of affairs that the Bible would approve of is one where strikes are unnecessary.



And who is given authority to decide whether (violate action to disrupt the livelihood of a property owner in order to gain more of that property that does not belong to him) is "unnecessary"?

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------




> Luke 3:14
> And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.


.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2011)

Fascinating this blind preoccupation with slavish subservience, even to knavish enterprise. Simply because one employs others to some work hardly qualifies the employer to blind obedience or requires servility from employees to the neglect of ones familial obligations. Labor laws allow for unions and strikes for good reason. What about submission to righteous law? Being in a Christian church is voluntary? It is not. Much of the tone in this thread is highly individualistic. Petitioning the employer? Unions have no leverage apart from the threat of strike; striking is at the core of union functionality. Naturally, one wishes to be judged meritoriously in the workplace and shameless are those that abuse the union to exercise sloth and careless behavior (similar to antinomians in the church). However, that does not obviate the Believers call to take up the cross. 

Don't mistake my sentiments, I am not all in for unions. Unions can be very devilish and unhelpful, particularly in the public domain. Let's agree, these strikes are really not all the same; sometimes labour is more in the right and at other times the Whigs.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Luke 3:14
> And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.



Context. John is telling the soldiers not to extort money from those whom they have power over. He's not telling them not to ever ask for a raise.




Scott1 said:


> Are we saying it is "lawful" for servants to collectively interfere with the contracts, the livelihood, the property of their master who owns that property?



So is the employer the owner of the employee's labour? Really? The employee has contracted to provide it, but such a contract may be renegotiated or terminated by either party.



Scott1 said:


> And who is given authority to decide whether (violate action to disrupt the livelihood of a property owner in order to gain more of that property that does not belong to him) is "unnecessary"?



One could pose the same sort of question about raising the price on any sort of good or service.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------




seajayrice said:


> Much of the tone in this thread is highly individualistic.



No kidding. Only in America could this conversation take place.


----------



## satz (Dec 3, 2011)

Is it ok for a wife to walk out on her husband until he treats her the way she wants? If not, what is the difference between this and employees going on strike? Its completely legal for the wife to treat her husband this way according to the law of the land, after all.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 3, 2011)

Just for some perspective, here's the statement from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

304. The Church's social doctrine recognizes the legitimacy of striking “when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit”,[663] when every other method for the resolution of disputes has been ineffectual.[664] Striking, one of the most difficult victories won by labour union associations, may be defined as the collective and concerted refusal on the part of workers to continue rendering their services, for the purpose of obtaining by means of such pressure exerted on their employers, the State or on public opinion either better working conditions or an improvement in their social status. Striking “as a kind of ultimatum” [665] must always be a peaceful method for making demands and fighting for one's rights; it becomes “morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good”.[666]


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

satz said:


> Is it ok for a wife to walk out on her husband until he treats her the way she wants?



No, because this is a covenant, not a contract.


----------



## satz (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Is it ok for a wife to walk out on her husband until he treats her the way she wants?
> ...



What's the difference, biblically, between a covenant and a contract?

Don't the contracts employee's sign say that the employee agrees to work for their employer with due diligence? Isn't the pay that these employees are now striking against specifically stated on the contract which the employees themselves signed?


----------



## Edward (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> "Lawful"? What is your definition- is this a biblical term?



I thought we were starting from a common basis of the Standards. 

Q. 127. What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors?
A. The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; *willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels;* due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense, and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 3, 2011)

satz said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > satz said:
> ...



Your assertions are overly simplistic, labor relations are complex. Here is a link that might be helpful to your understanding. https://www.nlrb.gov/


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

satz said:


> What's the difference, biblically, between a covenant and a contract?



Biblically, a covenant would be permanent and binding for life until broken (e.g. cheating on one's spouse) and sometimes not even then (e.g. God never breaks His covenants even if we do).

A contract is a function of the civil magistrate and would entail whatever is encoded in civil or common law that pertains to that area of law (see the link that CJ posted---I'm no expert).


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Please see comment.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Luke 3:14
> ...



Actually, the basic question, at least from an economic standpoint, maybe not from a spiritual authority one, but from an economic one, is going on in a much greater scale right now in GREECE.

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ----------




seajayrice said:


> Fascinating this blind preoccupation with slavish subservience, even to knavish enterprise.



Is this the way it works in the Kingdom of God?

Are we commanded to take this kind of view toward our Lord (that means owner), our fellow man (includes the one who hires and pays us with his own property), or church authority?

---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------




Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > "Lawful"? What is your definition- is this a biblical term?
> ...



In the biblical sense here, "lawful" actually does not support violence against one's superior, as in a strike.

The fifth command would not be saying that is "lawful" against one's employer (superior), who is paying us and under whose authority we are under.

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------




satz said:


> When the bible speaks of submission to authority, it does not just refer to government authority but the authority of masters over servants as well.



Exactly.

One of the several authority relationships God has ordained, e.g.
husband/wife employer/employee church officer/church member magistrate/citizen parent/child

God holds the "superior" (WLC term) responsible for the way they behave. But he does not call the "inferior" to violate that authority as an ordinary part of the relationship. Nor does he call on the "inferior" to condition his respect of that authority on the "inferiors" willingness to respect that authority.

God calls each one to respect to the authority He has ordained, and trust Him for the results.

To do right and good, even if we from time to time have to suffer in doing right, and to trust Him for the results. And to witness for Him in a way the world does not.

Because all the matters in this world is material things, and that is the way of this world.

Not so in the Kingdom of God.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 PM ----------

We just had the not long ago largest airline in the world declare bankruptcy because a "strike" was threatened so a certain (very privileged, highly paid) work group would receive (even) higher pay, fewer hours, and longer vacations.

Biblically, what motivates this?

Violations of commandments two, five, ten and likely others.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> The fifth command would not be saying that is "lawful" against one's employer (superior), who is paying us



I was not aware the strikers were paid for the duration of a strike. Also, strikes do not have to be violent.



Scott1 said:


> No, there is no threat in the free exchange of goods and services. "Strike" is based on interfering with another's property, including his contracts to do business.



No, strike is based upon the principle that workers are as necessary to the business as any other part and therefore should be compensated fairly for their labour.



Scott1 said:


> Actually, the basic question, at least from an economic standpoint, maybe not from a spiritual authority one, but from an economic one, is going on in a much greater scale right now in GREECE.



Only in America would it be assumed that the only contract is between the individual and the employer and that there is no obligation of solidarity with other employees.



Scott1 said:


> He certainly is not telling them to strike.



Applying the passage to strikes is a category mistake. He is not telling them not to strike any more than he is telling them to strike.



Scott1 said:


> There is a heart attitude here, one about material things, that's the context.



No---it's about authority and the excercise of power. Again, these are Roman soldiers who have power, both physical and legal, over the local populace. To universalize it in the way that you do is to misapply the passage: it is about not extorting money unjustly, not about asking for one's due in order to provide for one's family.



Scott1 said:


> The employer owns his money (which he pays the employees who voluntarily work for him with).



However, he also owes the worker the value of his labour. If I see my neighbour struggling to pay his bills despite his hard work and long hours, and not through his own negligence, there is something wrong and I am right to advocate for him.

It is one thing to be suffering for righteousness and bearing up under persecution. But one is, I think, Biblically allowed to ask for redress of grievances in a manner that accords with the laws of the land. Simply because some strikes are motivated by greed does not invalidate strikes as a whole any more than the fact that some wars are motivated by greed means that no wars are just.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I was not aware the strikers were paid for the duration of a strike. Also, strikes do not have to be violent.



Actually, it is quite common in our generation that strikers are paid while on strike from their "strike fund."

A "strike" is a violent act inherently. It willfully, offensively is designed and does actually disrupt the the business of his employer. It interferes with the business relationships with an attempt to stop or hinder them.

That's violent.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> No, strike is based upon the principle that workers are as necessary to the business as any other part and therefore should be compensated fairly for their labour.



The laborer does not decide how much he gets paid with another man's property. He can quit and go somewhere else if not satisfied. "Fairly" compensated, now that's a term to lead to anarchy.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Only in America would it be assumed that the only contract is between the individual and the employer and that there is no obligation of solidarity with other employees.



How do you know much another employee is worth? Who gives that to another employee to decide?

What's the biblical principle of "solidarity" for intimidating for someone else's money?


----------



## Edward (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> In the biblical sense here, "lawful" actually does not support violence against one's superior, as in a strike.
> 
> The fifth command would not be saying that is "lawful" against one's employer (superior), who is paying us and under whose authority we are under.



You still miss my point. Both the employer and the employee are subject to a higher authority - Caesar (or in this case Title 29 of the United states Code and those regulations found in 29 CFR.) You are trying to bind the employee, but exempt the employer from duties under the commandment. 

"§ 163. Right to strike preserved

Nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically provided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike, or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right."


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> it is about not extorting money unjustly,


What is a strike?

If you don't pay me 75% of my pay for 30 years after I work for your company, I will shut down your company, and drain out all your property, and those of your shareholders.

Also, if you don't pay me, I will seek to harm your reputation, stop your customers from buying and hinder prospective ones from buying from you.

This is the way of the flesh.

Not the way of the Kingdom of God.

---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------




Edward said:


> You still miss my point. Both the employer and the employee are subject to a higher authority - Caesar (or in this case Title 29 of the United states Code and those regulations found in 29 CFR.) You are trying to bind the employee, but exempt the employer from duties under the commandment.



The authority to "enforce" is not given to the "inferior."


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Actually, it is quite common in our generation that strikers are paid while on strike from their "strike fund."



By the employer or by the union?

Might I suggest looking some of Kuyper's ideas and policies with regard to questions of labour and employment? (he considered trade unions to be a legitimate sphere of human interaction). There are several excellent articles around which outline them. Also, check out _Rerum Novarum_, an encyclical by Leo XIII, which presents a Thomist case for much a very similar program to that which Kuyper advocated.



Scott1 said:


> The laborer does not decide how much he gets paid with another man's property. He can quit and go somewhere else if not satisfied.



Assuming, of course, that there is a better job available that can satisfy his needs. Again, only in America would there be the wildly optimistic assumption that one would always have the opportunity to climb the ladder in this way.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> However, he also owes the worker the value of his labour. If I see my neighbour struggling to pay his bills despite his hard work and long hours, and not through his own negligence, there is something wrong and I am right to advocate for him.



If he is struggling, you do need to advocate for him.

But not by telling someone else to do something.

You are not the determiner of his standard of living.

What are you to do, biblically?

Pray for him.
Maybe you can help him with some of YOUR OWN money or own time.
Counsel him to reduce some of his expenses.
Maybe he has a sin problem that is draining away his resources, maybe you can help him with that.

How do you know his employer is not struggling in the same way?


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> What's the biblical principle of "solidarity" for intimidating for someone else's money?



Again with the assumption of individualism and that charity makes no obligation of advocating publicly for the rights of others.



Scott1 said:


> A "strike" is a violent act inherently. It willfully, offensively is designed and does actually disrupt the the business of his employer. It interferes with the business relationships with an attempt to stop or hinder them.
> 
> That's violent.



Only if you take John Locke's definition of violence. By this definition, a boycott is also violent.



Scott1 said:


> The authority to "enforce" is not given to the "inferior."



Legally, yes it is. That's the principle of a democratic society: that all have a duty to uphold the law, not just those specifically charged with doing so by force of arms.

---------- Post added at 10:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 PM ----------




Scott1 said:


> If he is struggling, you do need to advocate for him.
> 
> But not by telling someone else to do something.



Why not?

Consider this too: a market economy will inevitably produce unions. When the situation becomes intolerable to the workers, they will organize. This, by the way, is why the Soviet Union/etc _banned_ unions: because they were a threatening to bring a free market of labour back into play.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Assuming, of course, that there is a better job available that can satisfy his needs. Again, only in America would there be the wildly optimistic assumption that one would always have the opportunity to climb the ladder in this way.



For the believer, the "ladder" is controlled by God.

---------- Post added at 11:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------




> Exodus 20:17
> Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


.



> Matthew 22:39
> And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.





> Ephesians 6
> 
> 5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
> 
> ...


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming, of course, that there is a better job available that can satisfy his needs. Again, only in America would there be the wildly optimistic assumption that one would always have the opportunity to climb the ladder in this way.
> ...



By this logic, one should just volunteer and pray that God provides enough money to pay the bills. The way that you are using the notion of covetousness is (ironically) rather capitalistic.

Is it possible to honour one's employer and still ask for a raise?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 3, 2011)

> 1 Peter 2:18
> 
> 
> 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.


.


----------



## Philip (Dec 3, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> > 1 Peter 2:18
> >
> >
> > 18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
> ...



What would you say to the notion (Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, et al.) that unions themselves could be considered proper spheres of authority?

And again, the way that you are using this verse ignores the contractual nature of the employer/employee relationship.


----------



## satz (Dec 4, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...



Could you please let me know which particular section I should read?

The bible appears to set out that labor relations - as far as the employee's duties are fairly simple:



> Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him




I am certainly willing to consider how our modern arrangements may change things, but let me know exactly what you are thinking about. 
.

---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference, biblically, between a covenant and a contract?
> ...



Who says that marriage is a covenant in the way you describe? - the bible. The world, and the secular law certainly don't think so. 

So why go to the bible to define marriage but to the world to define employment? The bible says employment is a master-servant relationship, and masters need to be respected. 

Further, the reason for a christian servant's submission to his master is because in serving his master, he is serving Christ:



> Eph6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; 6Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; 7With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: 8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.


 


> Col 3:22Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; 23And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;



Their obedience is not primarily because they are property of their masters, or slaves. So the duty of obedience does not end simply because today employees are not owned by their masters.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 5, 2011)

From a biblical standpoint, the law that governs Christians, is quite different from that of the world.

Believers are not in this world to wring out every last cent from their masters through collective intimidation. It goes against God's authority, God's prohibition against covetousness, idolatry, denying superiors, and more. 

Nor does, from a biblical, or even a practical standpoint, the servant come at determining what others will pay him from a standpoint of moral superiority.

It is not his property he is demanding.

It is the property of another.

The property that the servant would "strike" against is not only that of his master.

It is also that of:
1) the owners of the business (e.g. many disparate shareholders)
2) customers of the business

The violent action of "strike" affects not only the "employer" (which may be many individuals with families to feed and their own network of contracts that others depend on).

It also affects customers who depend on that good or service.

It also affects investors who may own shares of stock and are depending on the good financial results of the company for their own income. There is even a term, "widows and orphans" stock, because so many of them depend on it.

So, this issue biblically cannot be looked at in isolation of its relationship to God and one's fellow man.

One final biblical passage on this thread topic, "Christians and striking":



> Luke 12
> 
> 13And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 5, 2011)

If it is legitimate for all the workers to resign from their jobs, could not _some_ strikes be viewed as the workers saying, "I want to resign. We all want to resign. But that would cause great problems for you our employer. So instead we intend to temporarily resign for a short time period." If it would be ok for the whole union to resign from their jobs, what is so bad about a temporary "resignation", when that is allowed for by law? The effect of a strike is less than that of a mass resignation.

Also, in the case of public employees in a democratic state it is not necessarily entirely clear who the master is, or what forms of negotiation should be permitted. 

Of course, often strike action is done for reasons which one wouldn't condone.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 5, 2011)

Actually, Mark, the New Testament never speaks to employer-employee relations, as far as I know. The idea that one can simply impose onto free workers the admonitions given to _slaves_ is ridiculous. Those admonitions don't present an ideal for labor relations; they teach slaves how to make the best of a horrible reality.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2011)

I think Joanna hit the nail on the head. A strike is a way of saying "we want to work for you, but we also need changes that you aren't granting." If you can think of a better way to protest work conditions biblically, I would love to hear it. Also, remember that a strike is a last resort.



CharlieJ said:


> Actually, Mark, the New Testament never speaks to employer-employee relations, as far as I know.



This is correct, given that employer-employee relations in the modern sense didn't exist until about the middle of the 18th Century with the coming of the industrial revolution. Before this time, most "employees" would have been provided with room and board (with the exception, maybe, of those in finance). 



Scott1 said:


> The property that the servant would "strike" against is not only that of his master.
> 
> It is also that of:
> 1) the owners of the business (e.g. many disparate shareholders)
> 2) customers of the business



Which is why if workers unionize, they should be required (by law) to purchase (as soon as it is feasible) a significant share of the business's stock, if it is publicly traded. Something like this is the case in places like Germany, where unions often have members on the board of the company.


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 5, 2011)

satz said:


> When the bible speaks of submission to authority, it does not just refer to government authority but the authority of masters over servants as well. Unions going on strike may not be violating government authority, but they are violating the authority of the employers, which is something which should be considered soberly as well.



Mark are you saying that an employer owns the employee like a master owned a slave in the first century?


----------



## JM (Dec 5, 2011)

Christians should not strike but grapple.


----------



## John Bunyan (Dec 5, 2011)

Knowing beforehand how much Im going to win working in a certain Company, I believe it would be unfair going on strike to demand larger wages.

Striking is OK if the company is to be breaking the law or risking its employees, but not to demand money.

There are a lot of persons in need of a job and in need of services; if we are unhappy with our jobs and believe we deserve something better, we can always leave it to someone who (or whom, I don't really know) would be grateful to perform it. (And that way no costumer or employer is harmed)

Another thing that is really wrong in strikes is the harassing of anyone trying to work in peace (at least in my country), besides spending my money without my consent in that process (we are, here, obliged by law to pay an "Imposto Sindical" (Union Tax), wheter we are in a union or not).

Oh, and no one has the obligation to employ me, so it is plainly wrong to coerce someone into giving you more money - that's just blackmailing/extorting your boss, actually.

Sorry for any errors in my grammar.


----------



## Edward (Dec 5, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> Believers are not in this world to wring out every last cent from their masters through collective intimidation. It goes against God's authority, God's prohibition against covetousness, idolatry, denying superiors, and more.



To which I would say:

Believers are not in this world to wring out every last cent from their servants through intimidation. It goes against God's authority, God's prohibition against covetousness, idolatry, abusing inferiors, and more.

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors?
A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.


----------



## satz (Dec 5, 2011)

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Believers are not in this world to wring out every last cent from their masters through collective intimidation. It goes against God's authority, God's prohibition against covetousness, idolatry, denying superiors, and more.
> ...



What does this have to do with the propriety of strikes though? Just because someone in authority sins does not give the ones under authority the right to rebel against that authority.

Think of children vs parents, wives vs husbands, church members vs pastors.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2011)

satz said:


> What does this have to do with the propriety of strikes though? Just because someone in authority sins does not give the ones under authority the right to rebel against that authority.



Depends on the kind of authority. In the United States, we have a right to decide who our superiors will be in the field of politics and a legal right of revolt every few years.

Because of the contractual nature of the employer-employee relationship and the negotiable nature of said relationship, striking is permissible. The other authority-relations that you mention are not negotiable in the same way.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 5, 2011)

However, I would like to point out that even in the husband/wife and parent/child relationship, there are sins that can dissolve or radially alter the relationship. If a man beats his wife and/or children, she certainly ought to remove herself and them from that situation, and further involve legal authorities. According to the WCF, adultery and abandonment may lead to the dissolution of a marriage. If children are being malnourished by parents, that may lead to the end of that relationship. Et cetera. Et cetera. None of the "submit" passages of scripture take precedence over preservation of life and dignity.


----------



## satz (Dec 5, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> However, I would like to point out that even in the husband/wife and parent/child relationship, there are sins that can dissolve or radially alter the relationship. If a man beats his wife and/or children, she certainly ought to remove herself and them from that situation, and further involve legal authorities. According to the WCF, adultery and abandonment may lead to the dissolution of a marriage. If children are being malnourished by parents, that may lead to the end of that relationship. Et cetera. Et cetera. None of the "submit" passages of scripture take precedence over preservation of life and dignity.



Charlie, I agree 100% with what you write but how exactly is not being paid what you want equvialent any of the other horrendous sins you mention - malnourishment, adultery, beating etc? How is wanting to be paid more the same as the "preservation of life and dignity"?


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2011)

satz said:


> How is wanting to be paid more the same as the "preservation of life and dignity"?



What would be the proper equivalent of spousal abuse in the case of a contract-relationship?


----------



## satz (Dec 5, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > How is wanting to be paid more the same as the "preservation of life and dignity"?
> ...



Philip, since you are the one who is (I presume) ascerting that there is such a thing, shouldn't it be you who gives examples of this? 

Its not clear to me how a modern employer can "abuse" an employee in the same manner of spousal abuse. An employee can always quit and find a better job if the conditions at work are not satisfactory.


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2011)

satz said:


> Its not clear to me how a modern employer can "abuse" an employee in the same manner of spousal abuse. An employee can always quit and find a better job if the conditions at work are not satisfactory.



But this is exactly what a contract-relationship entails: that it can be terminated and that this termination can be used as a bargaining tool if renegotiating is necessary. One may not renegotiate a marriage, but one may renegotiate the terms of a contract, and therein lies the difference.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 5, 2011)

Two opposite views: John MacArthur once opined that workers do not have the right to strike - period. He cited a text from 1 Peter to defend his view. On the other hand, in one of his expositions, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that, in Britain, the first labor unions were begun by Christians. Taking from the Bible the recognition that workers "are men, and not pigs" (his words), Lloyd-Jones says that this was the basis for the original unions - the workers deserved to be treated humanly and humanely, and that they have the right to strike to accomplish this.


----------



## satz (Dec 5, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> > Its not clear to me how a modern employer can "abuse" an employee in the same manner of spousal abuse. An employee can always quit and find a better job if the conditions at work are not satisfactory.
> ...



That's fair enough, but is that really all that strikes are about? Are unions happy to allow employees who do want to work for the current wage to go to work? If the employer is not willing to meet their demands are they willing to be fired and allow the employer to hire new workers who will work for the offered wage?


----------



## Philip (Dec 5, 2011)

satz said:


> That's fair enough, but is that really all that strikes are about? Are unions happy to allow employees who do want to work for the current wage to go to work? If the employer is not willing to meet their demands are they willing to be fired and allow the employer to hire new workers who will work for the offered wage?



These are good questions, and it is not my intention to defend the actions of unions in all cases. My point is that there are times and places for strikes. In addition, the collective bargaining power of the workers is part of what should set the rate of pay. It is only when the employer recognizes the employees as ends in themselves rather than just means to the end of profit that one can have good and mutually beneficial relations between employer and employee.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Dec 6, 2011)

It would appear that this thread has been principally about a worker striking to obtain greater benefit. In fact, in the UK these recent strikes have been about the opposite.

The Government (the employer) is changing the final benefits payable to its employees upon retirement, by moving from a final salary pension scheme to a "career averaged" pension scheme. This means the employees will receive a smaller pension than they signed up to when accepting the job. In addition, the government is increasing the contributions that an employee makes into the pension schemes. Finally, the government is increasing the retirement age for retiring government employees, from 60 to an eventual 68 in 2046.

So the strikes aren't about employees deciding their own worth, they're about the employer reducing their benefits and take-home pay (by increasing their mandatory payments).

The reason for the goverment's action is simply that because we're no longer dying on time (aged around 78) but rather living into our 80's and 90's, the amount of money available for the payment of pensions must now last longer and is therefore not enough - hence the increases.

Not very theological I know, but it might put a different spin on some of the answers.

In short, the employees are being told that they must pay more for a smaller benefit taken at a later date than originally contractually agreed.


----------



## PhilA (Dec 6, 2011)

crimsonleaf said:


> It would appear that this thread has been principally about a worker striking to obtain greater benefit. In fact, in the UK these recent strikes have been about the opposite.
> 
> The Government (the employer) is changing the final benefits payable to its employees upon retirement, by moving from a final salary pension scheme to a "career averaged" pension scheme. This means the employees will receive a smaller pension than they signed up to when accepting the job. In addition, the government is increasing the contributions that an employee makes into the pension schemes. Finally, the government is increasing the retirement age for retiring government employees, from 60 to an eventual 68 in 2046.
> 
> ...



Very well put. I would add further points.

1. Public Service pensions schemes have already been adjusted (after union negotiation) within the last six years to allow for increased longevity (amongst other things). Life expectancy has not increased materially in the last six years.

2. The increased cost is not going towards paying for future pensions.

3. Public Sector pay has historically been reduced to account for the acknowledged benefit of pension scheme membership.


----------



## John Bunyan (Dec 6, 2011)

Lets suppose I have the following agreement with someone: "I wash our cars on mondays and you do it on saturdays". One day, however, I find that I'd rather wash the cars at saturdays. What is the right thing to do?

A- Stop washing the cars and forbidding anyone from doing that untill he agrees with me.
B- Convince him that we would all be better off, and it would be fairer, if I were to be the one washing our cars on saturdays.
C- Look for another person who would like me to wash her car on saturdays.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Dec 6, 2011)

PhilA said:


> 1. Public Service pensions schemes have already been adjusted (after union negotiation) within the last six years to allow for increased longevity (amongst other things). Life expectancy has not increased materially in the last six years.
> 
> 2. The increased cost is not going towards paying for future pensions.
> 
> 3. Public Sector pay has historically been reduced to account for the acknowledged benefit of pension scheme membership.



Agreed, other than the most recent reviews came into effect in Jan 2007 - almost 5 years ago - which makes it worse.


----------



## E Nomine (Dec 7, 2011)

I've worked in labor relations for 20 years and have yet to come across a labor union that does not violate the 9th and 10th commandments relentlessly as its standard practice.


----------



## Dwimble (Dec 7, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Actually, Mark, the New Testament never speaks to employer-employee relations, as far as I know. The idea that one can simply impose onto free workers the admonitions given to _slaves_ is ridiculous. Those admonitions don't present an ideal for labor relations; they teach slaves how to make the best of a horrible reality.



Maybe not specifically, but there is a good example in one of the Lord's parables. Do with it what you will:


> Matthew 20
> 
> 1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' 5So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' 8And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' 16So the last will be first, and the first last."


----------



## John Bunyan (Dec 8, 2011)

E Nomine said:


> I've worked in labor relations for 20 years and have yet to come across a labor union that does not violate the 9th and 10th commandments relentlessly as its standard practice.


So true.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 19, 2011)

Having just come across a book written by Larry Burkette, "Dollars and Sense," it states a biblical principle that ought guide Christians in a discussion like this.

That is, employees ought be concerned for the welfare of their employers.

By derivation, that extends to the shareholders and even the customers, great and small, of the business.

This goes to the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

And no discussion, based on biblical precept is complete without that.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 19, 2011)

That sounds like it could get complicated. If I work for a company which provides cheap products to its customers, and at some point I realise they are trying to make their products even cheaper and as a result the customers will have an inferior product which will harm their health and they won't have the option of buying elsewhere as competing businesses will have been pushed out of the market by the time the customers realise...what should I do?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 19, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> If I work for a company which provides cheap products to its customers, and at some point I realise they are trying to make their products even cheaper and as a result the customers will have an inferior product which will harm their health and they won't have the option of buying elsewhere as competing businesses will have been pushed out of the market by the time the customers realise...what should I do?



It's hard to know, as there are so many value judgements one is making. What do we mean by an "inferior" product (I buy products that prove to be "inferior" regularly). Harm whose health- every person? Isn't this illegal? Wouldn't this be a criminal matter?

Do companies really want to kill their customers?

Who believes that?

How does any of this involve viewing the welfare of the one who is paying you and taking responsibility for that?

If a spouse is misbehaving, what does one do?

In a job, one can always leave.

(In a moral sense, it's not consistent to say, but then I won't make money as an employee... that's not the limitation of the believer walking by faith, trusting God for provision).

By the way, here is the book that has one chapter that is pertinent to biblical employer/employee relations:
http://www.amazon.com/Dollars-Sense-Wisdom-Faithful-Steward/dp/1557484155


----------



## Philip (Dec 20, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> In a job, one can always leave.



Here's the rub, though, Scott. If one simply leaves a company because of something it's doing wrong, has one been really loving toward its management? A strike can actually be more loving because it points out the wrong. I agree that many strikes violate commandments, but there are countless examples I can think of where one would be right to strike and not simply leave. If there is a duty of employee to employer, then there is a two-way street of communication where is a place for the employee to make demands and reasonably expect a hearing.

If one truly believes that hiring/production practices in a company are truly harmful, then one has the duty to point that out---publicly, if necessary.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2011)

Comments below.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > In a job, one can always leave.
> ...



Biblically, you operate within the authority God has placed over you. That includes appealing to that authority to reconsider. If those remedies are exhausted, there can be a legitimate role for civil government to enforce true health and safety, failure to pay issues. In this generation, we have a myriad of lawyers and courts in which to adjudicate even hypothetical interests.

Ultimately, one is free to leave that employment if the employee has the right biblical attitudes, is acting virtuous and the employer is not.

As the Apostle Peter encouraged servants of his day, bear up under adversity for the sake of Christ, and God will provide, and there will be peace.


----------



## Philip (Dec 20, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> The biblical principles of Matthew 5 lay out a basic approach to reconciliation-



In the church.



Scott1 said:


> Let's not pretend that the motive for employees striking is to be more loving toward their employers. Really.



I can apply this logic toward all kinds of other things---for example, leaving one's church because of unsound preaching, sacking the mayor at election time, protesting tax hikes.



Scott1 said:


> A hearing yes, but not collective disruption of the contracts and obligations of the master so one might personally benefit.



What about so the workers might collectively benefit?

If the work is such that a) it needs to be done b) the workers are trying to provide for their dependents but are unable to do so c) little other work is available in the vicinity for the majority of such workers, then I would say a strike is justified. What you are arguing against is the abuse, not the right use.

I would say that if one has sufficient warrant and sufficiently Biblical motivations, striking is permissible.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 20, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The biblical principles of Matthew 5 lay out a basic approach to reconciliation-
> ...



Philip - what's wrong with employers putting the boot on the necks of the under class? I suppose you oppose child labor and forced servitude too? Shame on you, where is your compassion for the SSE and Wall St?


----------



## Philip (Dec 20, 2011)

seajayrice said:


> Philip - what's wrong with employers putting the boot on the necks of the under class? I suppose you oppose child labor and forced servitude too? Shame on you, where is your compassion for the SSE and Wall St?



I have great compassion for the Scrooges of this world.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 20, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The biblical principles of Matthew 5 lay out a basic approach to reconciliation-
> ...



Where is there one normative example of this being the way of God's people in Scripture?

Where is this kind of attitude reflected in our Lord's life, words or actions?

Didn't our Lord give up rights and pursuit of material things to glorify God to show that His Kingdom was not of this world?

The difficulty is that this reasoning supposes a morally superior position of every employee to every employer, shareholder or customer.

It also supposes that the servant employee just decides what he ought have of the master employer's property (or the shareholders) though it is not his property at risk.

This isn't the way life works- not in the real world, and certainly not in the Kingdom of God.


----------



## Philip (Dec 20, 2011)

Scott1 said:


> What if the employer is a Christian, too?



Take your budget, pay, etc before the Church session. Also, all of those of your fellow employees. What you keep failing to recognize is the collective power and therefore the collective responsibility of the workers.

The other thing to recognize (naturally) is the stake of the worker in the welfare of the business.



Scott1 said:


> Not sure what you mean by analogy to a civil election



Voting someone out of office is a legal means of revolt, just like striking.



Scott1 said:


> On what basis do you say the servant employees interests are superior to the customers that depend on the business for goods and services, and for their own livelihood? Or superior to the shareholders lose their investment? How about the "widows and orphans" stocks?



This is why one part of renumeration for working in publicly traded companies ought to be actual ownership of stock---that way the worker has a stake.

Regardless, you forget that profit gained by exploiting the worker is theft. A company that makes money through failure to compensate its workers adequately is stealing from them.



Scott1 said:


> Actually, for the Christian, I don't think this is at all a biblical pattern- the servant employee trying to coerce his master employee into giving the servant employee more money, or more money for fewer hours.



Let's change the scenario: the management is refusing to give the workers a sabbath rest. Is there a case for strike here (let's say for the sake of argument that the comany in question in the town's only employer)?



Scott1 said:


> Didn't our Lord give up rights and pursuit of material things to glorify God to show that His Kingdom was not of this world?



If we take this logic to its conclusion, we will conclude that Christians should not run for-profit enterprises at all.



Scott1 said:


> The difficulty is that this reasoning supposes a morally superior position of every employee to every employer, shareholder or customer.



No it doesn't. I am proposing that there are appropriate circumstances for striking, not that striking is always appropriate or moral.



Scott1 said:


> This isn't the way life works- not in the real world, and certainly not in the Kingdom of God.



Unfortunately, unions too often interfere with the legitimate interests of the workers, so yes, I'll agree with you. In the Kingdom of God there will be no strikes because there will be no need for them.


----------



## satz (Dec 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> What about so the workers might collectively benefit?
> 
> If the work is such that a) it needs to be done b) the workers are trying to provide for their dependents but are unable to do so c) little other work is available in the vicinity for the majority of such workers, then I would say a strike is justified. What you are arguing against is the abuse, not the right use.
> 
> I would say that if one has sufficient warrant and sufficiently Biblical motivations, striking is permissible.



Who is to say whether the workers are being paid enough? The bible is, generally, a very pro-authority book, and if there is a dispute about whether the employer is exploiting its workers (due to monopoly power), this is something which the government should have oversight off. Its for the government - which God has placed over the employer, to take the employer to task for this. Its generally not for the employees, who God has placed under the employer, to do so.

Also, just because workers are unable to support a family on a particular pay does not automatically mean the employer is being abusive. If a person's particular skills do not allow him to do work that pays well enough for him to make what he needs, he needs to retrain, not try to force an employer to pay him what he does not deserve. If he needs help to retrain, this is a place for charity either from the church or the state. But it does not mean he should try to force his employer to pay him what he wants.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> In the Kingdom of God there will be no strikes because there will be no need for them.



In the Kingdom of Heaven there will be no strikes because God's people will not be trying to obstruct the business of their King or coerce their King in order to get something for themselves.

Nor will there be any false pretense that the borrower rules over the lender or the servant over his master.

That begins now.

---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Let's change the scenario: the management is refusing to give the workers a sabbath rest.



Your examples do not fit your reasoning.

Strikes are not had so workers may observe the sabbath.

Did the Israelites in Egypt strike for a sabbath?

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Regardless, you forget that profit gained by exploiting the worker is theft. A company that makes money through failure to compensate its workers adequately is stealing from them.



Giving someone a job that they voluntarily choose to work at is not "exploitation." Nor is a husband being a suffering servant to his wife. Nor a wife submitting to her husband. Nor a child submitting to their parents. Nor a citizen submitting to the magistrate. Nor an enlisted military man submitting to the order of an officer.

The price of goods and services is driven by what people are willing to pay for them in a free transaction. That determines the value of labor, the value of employer pay, what the shareholder investment gets, and the price of the good or service.

Your reasoning places all employees in a morally superior position to all those they serve and allows them to subjectively determine what to do with the property of another.

The Bible teaches God ordains the authorities that be, and the circumstances of our lives. Even things that don't seem "fair."

That's a central message of a sovereign God who works in the affairs of men to do His good pleasure.


----------



## Philip (Dec 21, 2011)

satz said:


> The bible is, generally, a very pro-authority book, and if there is a dispute about whether the employer is exploiting its workers (due to monopoly power), this is something which the government should have oversight off.



But this is the point: in a liberal-democratic society, it's a two-way street. The government is accountable before the people and the employer is accountable before the employees.



Scott1 said:


> Strikes are not had so workers may observe the sabbath.



Nonetheless, would this be a legitimate reason?



Scott1 said:


> Did the Israelites in Egypt strike for a sabbath?



They were slaves, not employees.



Scott1 said:


> The price of goods and services is driven by what people are willing to pay for them in a free transaction.



But that's the point: if employment is a free transaction, then workers have the power of renegotiation and therefore of strike. It's a free transaction between employer and employee, and therefore the employee has the legal opportunity (in a free market) to renegotiate.



Scott1 said:


> Your reasoning places all employees in a morally superior position to all those they serve and allows them to subjectively determine what to do with the property of another.



No it doesn't. That's not at all what I have been saying. I have been defending the proposition that collective renegotiation by the workers may be necessary and lawful. I have not defended it in every case, nor have I maintained that all strikes have pure motives (most don't). I have been maintaining that some strikes can be a good and necessary check on exploitation of the workers.

Is political protest allowed?

I think at this point, further discussion will continue to go around in circles, so I'll bow out.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 21, 2011)

For those seeking to study what the Bible has to say about employer-employee relationships, the Thompson Chain reference has an excellent compilation, beginning around chain index 598.

This is not a new topic, but one of a basic relationship throughout time that tests Christians (both as employer and employee) and is one way God proves Himself out through His people.

For a few examples, Scripture establishes for employers:

To pay wages promptly
To deal justly with their employees
To refrain from threatening employees
Not exact service without wages

For employees:

To be faithful as servants to their employees
To respect their employers
To desire to please their employers
To be patient in hard places

There is much more about how Christians are to behave in order to please their ultimate master, God.

There are ways God has given for appeal, alternatives, patient endurance, the ultimate power to quit, even government intervention in extreme cases. Both employer and employee is accountable to God- and that is really who they work for, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Neither employer nor employee live up to their biblical requirements.

That's why we all need a Savior.

But striking is not part of the Kingdom of God, it is not for God's people.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

One other set of resources for studying this important part of life biblically are any one of a number of books by Larry Burkett, including:

"Business by the Book,"
Business by the book: the complete ... - Larry Burkett - Google Books


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 22, 2011)

An employer hires employees with the understanding that they will work on certain days. If at some later date he then tells them to work on another day, and all the employees discussed it with each other and then refused to work on that day, why would that be wrong of them?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 22, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> An employer hires employees with the understanding that they will work on certain days. If at some later date he then tells them to work on another day, and all the employees discussed it with each other and then refused to work on that day, why would that be wrong of them?



Not sure I'm understanding what you are asking.

If the question is about working on the sabbath, it might be that Christians who were hired to work Monday-Friday and there was clear understanding they did not have to work Sundays, and after prayer, appeal, they might have to end up quitting, or at least be willing to.

IT WOULD BE MARVELOUS TO SEE MORE CHRISTIANS NOT WORKING ON SUNDAY, TAKING A CLEAR STAND ON THAT, AND BEING WILLING, AT LEAST, TO LOSE A JOB BECAUSE OF IT. 

Part of a good work testimony, including working hard and suffering through things with the business, would be making "Sundays off" clear at the time they took the job.

If the employee has had a good work testimony, the employer might listen. Not a guarantee. The problem is, many employees do not have a good work testimony, even sometimes those who profess to be Christians.

Just about anyone who has owned a business (even a very small one) can site examples of employees who demand more pay, waste time while on the job talking excessively about unrelated things, demand easier work assignments, and more parties, pensions (to pay people who are not working there from the present resources of the company,) etc. They would cite many employees not even being conscious of the welfare of their employer, let alone the shareholders or customers, often not even considerate of the other employees.

This is the real world, burdened by sin.

We all have a tendency that comes from the blindness of sin to see ourselves perfectly (as an employee) and others (e.g. our boss) as morally inferior.



> Matthew 7
> 
> 1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> ...



So, before we approach this from the simplistic and unbiblical viewpoint that all employees are morally superior to their employers, shareholders and customers and have no need to consider their welfare, believers need to know what Scripture tells us about ourselves.

That's even before we get to the nature of authority in relationships God has ordained (e.g. master/servant, employer/employee).

And before the nature of property rights, which are protected in the moral law (e.g. commands two, eight, nine and ten, perhaps others).

... and the practical reality that the value of labor is determined by what free choice buyers are willing to pay for the good or service.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 22, 2011)

Sometimes there is legislation such that workers can strike without risking being fired. But there are also places/situations in which there is no such protection. Perhaps this is an important difference: we could debate whether the former situation gives the employees an unfair advantage. Whereas in the latter situation it would seem to me that a strike _could in some circumstances for some reasons_ be perfectly appropriate. Employees are not owned by their employers; they are hired under certain conditions over a certain timeframe. If they strike on a day they had not agreed to work I do not see how that can be construed as the employees asserting some kind of unfair superiority. The employer can continue to employ the workers as originally agreed, or he can fire them and hire new workers. Or he can hire separate workers to work on the new day.

I suppose I am saying, that just because in practice pretty much every strike we observe is either entirely wrong or partly wrong, that does not mean that striking itself is necessarily wrong.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 22, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> Sometimes there is legislation such that workers can strike without risking being fired. But there are also places/situations in which there is no such protection. Perhaps this is an important difference: we could debate whether the former situation gives the employees an unfair advantage. Whereas in the latter situation it would seem to me that a strike _could in some circumstances for some reasons_ be perfectly appropriate. Employees are not owned by their employers; they are hired under certain conditions over a certain timeframe. If they strike on a day they had not agreed to work I do not see how that can be construed as the employees asserting some kind of unfair superiority. The employer can continue to employ the workers as originally agreed, or he can fire them and hire new workers. Or he can hire separate workers to work on the new day.
> 
> I suppose I am saying, that just because in practice pretty much every strike we observe is either entirely wrong or partly wrong, that does not mean that striking itself is necessarily wrong.



We could look at the situation pragmatically and hypothetically, but, the issue is about Christians, guided by the Scripture, addressing real life situations that are not new.

Fallen human beings do not like the idea of being "owned," or being humiliated, or suffering to serve. It bothers our ego.

But in the Kingdom of God, this is the way it works. God "owns" His creatures, whether they like it or not. Humiliating one's pride, and suffering to serve-
whether a husband being a suffering servant to his wife
whether a wife submitting to and respecting her husband
or our Lord submitting to the torture, ridicule and execution to live a perfect sinless life to pay for our sins (not even asserting His rights)

the idea of ganging up on one who owns property and trying to collectively disrupt his business by interfering with it unless he gives them, collectively, more- is just not based on Christian precepts. 

Power does not flow this way in the Kingdom of God anyway- and those who seek to ignore or defy that authority are "kicking against the goads," and bring God's chastisement (not peace) upon their lives.

Just study some of the parables of our Lord to see how authority flows between master and servant.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------




> Matthew 20
> 
> 1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.
> 
> ...


.


----------

