Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mark are you saying that an employer owns the employee like a master owned a slave in the first century?
Christians and Striking
- Thread starter scottmaciver
- Start date
- Status
Mark are you saying that an employer owns the employee like a master owned a slave in the first century?
John Bunyan
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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"?
What would be the proper equivalent of spousal abuse in the case of a contract-relationship?
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Agreed, other than the most recent reviews came into effect in Jan 2007 - almost 5 years ago - which makes it worse.
Dwimble
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe not specifically, but there is a good example in one of the Lord's parables. Do with it what you will:
John Bunyan
Puritan Board Freshman
So true.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
Comments below.
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.
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.
In the church.
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.
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.
Last edited:
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
- Status
