Going on strike

[jcright]

I don't think I've seen this topic here, feel free to let me know if I'm wrong and I'll search for it.

What are your thoughts about going on strike? Our union contract is going to be up pretty soon and so negotiations will be starting up. I've got two sisters that work here and they've been here much longer than i have. Every time they say their contract is up, they also mention that there could be a strike...so I might be faced with my first strike. Then again, I could easily be jumping the gun. maybe it'll actually go smoothly. In any event, I need to figure out what the biblical thing to do is now before I we reach that point (if we reach it at all).

So my immediate thougth goes to Matthew 20, the parable of the workers in the vineyard. In this case, I should be content with what I have and not riot about it. Of course, I have options. I could go else where (if I think I'm really that valuable) and try to make more money.

On the other hand, it might be argued that this is just part of the game and therefore to be expected. I can also see why we might strike. I work for a university. The faculty have their own union and they don't seem to have a problem getting a raise or anything else that is beneficial (more vacation, etc.). The staff that has an "AP" position doesn't seem to have any problems doing the same. However, the secretarial staff (which I am a part of), seems to struggle in getting any kind of equality. Instead of having respect for us, we're treated like we are a dime a dozen. Not that I believe in the concept of "fair".

Anyhow, I thought I'd throw the question out and see if you guys had any thoughts about this one way or the other. Especially if you can back it up biblically:)

Thanks!

[Gwenyfur]

I'm a teamster....
While I never really thought about the Biblical position on strikes...I do participate....if I didn't the union would lose it's strength and ability to protect my job, salary and benefits...they would lose the strength to keep me working at a decent wage instead of minimum wage....etc...

anyhow...just my 2 cents...if my teamster brothers and sisters are on strike...I strike as well

[Diane_Windsor]

In any strike I think it is wise to ask yourself the question: "How will this strike serve others?" Remember as Christians we are called to serve others and think others as better than ourselves.

During the Christmas holiday last year employees of one airline company decided that they would use their sick day to protest the company. This abuse of their sick day left thousands of holiday travellers stranded, many lost their luggage, and many had to spend the holiday in an airport instead of with their families. Was what these employees did in the best interest of their customers? No.

Diane
:)

[TwinCrier]

Opening can of worms....
NOW!
http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom3.html (http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom3.html)

[Maeyken]

I've recently been wondering about union stuff. I'm just entering the hospital system as a new nurse, and I think we are automatically part of the union when we are hired. In the hospital, the union helps to maintain safe working conditions for nurses which ensures adequate patient care. I've never been part of a union before and so I don't really know what it's all about. From comments of other nurses, it sounds as though the union is a good thing... from reading through the union booklet, it seems as though most of the things have to do with hours working and shifts and stuff like that, as well as policies on sick time, vacations, etc. To me it looks as though the union tries to be as fair as possible between nurses.

I read part of that website that TwinCrier posted... interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it but it does make me think. Personally, I don't see how unions are as "evil" as they are depicted in that article...

In regards to the strike issue... I guess to me it would really depend on the issue. If it was an issue regarding safety (of nurses or patients), or an issue of fairness (eg. policy stating who works holidays; health benefits) I would probably participate. However if it was something that seemed unimportant to me, I would have to think about it more, looking at how it would benefit others, etc. Also, if it was an issue I didn't agree with, I don't think I'd participate.

Well, lots to think about. I'm definitely interested to hear what other people have to say!

[constance]

I grew up near Flint, Michigan, and every male in my mother's family and my dad's mother's family has worked as a laborer for the vehicle industry for 100 years.

TwinCrier, I don't believe that the link that you supplied applies to the UAW.

I was able to talk to my great-grandfather about some of the famous strikes he participated in - these were not wealthy men, or even affluent ones. These were guys who lived in and around Flint - their wives often had jobs, and their children had jobs. I've seen the Censuses, and I've asked my grandparents.

Now, my dad's dad's family, on the other hand, came to this country from Scotland after the Depression and worked in a white collar job. My grandfather went to college, and my dad & his three brothers were all GM "suits". They didn't belong to the UAW - because they were not laborers.

The Bible also strictly lays out how you are to treat your "slaves" - if your corporation is not behaving in a Christian manner, I believe it is allowable to treat it as a secular one. Suing would be OK. Striking would be OK.

Constance

[arunma]

Hey, I'm all for strikes. Then again, I'm not a big fan of capitalism, and I don't think it's right to associate Christianity with any economic philosophy (capitalism or otherwise).

[jcright]

TC,

Interesting article. I almost decided not to read the whole thing. The author's intro is ridiculous. By what they are saying, we should be living in a socialist society because, when you think about it, the capitalist society leads to nothing but greed. This person easily condemns the union people for being greedy and therefore causing money problems for others...but they seem to forget that the higher ups make significantly more than the union people. Those same higher ups get a raise without any problems. I don't see them refusing to get paid more just so that we workers might earn a little more. Especially when you consider that the cost for living is always going up.

The intro also begs the question of how much is enough? Should I live in a tent? A trailer park? A house? A mansion? If one person is expected to live in a tent, then why isn't everyone? If it's good enough for one person, then it should be good enough for the "rich" as well.

Let me flip this around real quick. The unemployed have choices. They can flip burgers at McDonalds if they would swallow their pride. If they aren't trying to keep up with the jones, then they can make money enough to live. Can they raise a family on that? Put the rest of the family to work.

His intro has many holes in it. However, what I found intersting was his statement on not being yoked with unbelievers. He also brings up a good point about subjecting to the higher power.

Having said all that, I can't help but to think that the strike is still part of the "game". Not in the sense to be greedy, but to keep those who are greedy from taking advantage of their subordinates. We have the freedom to leave a job...but if it is because our boss is being unjust, then don't we have the right to try and correct them? I think I can see where the strike is a method of saying "Hey, you are treating me poorly. This is your warning that I will leave if you decide not to change your policy". So, in essence, one is not trying to be insubordinate towards their boss, but they are trying to protect themselves and still be loyal to their job. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with that.

At the moment, I think still remain on the fence. If the union is evil, then it's because the employers were evil first. We wouldn't need the union if the employers treated the workers fairly.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[eldermike]

There are several ways to look at this issue. Strikes in the north east built most of the industry in right to work states like NC, SC and many others. So in one respect strikes do spread the wealth.
Most business is driven from investor expectations, thus we have the huge profits. People don't realize that these profits drive stock sales and that's the engine of growth for the business.

On one hand we have our 401K's and expect a high returns, and then on the other hand we complain when companies make huge profits and refuse to give wage increases.

No matter how much protection a union gives us today the decision to close the business in one state and move it to another is always there.

In the service industry there are fewer options for the business to control costs and we see these cost running crazy. I think we will see some smart business folks opening up small hospitals, we already have the urgent care industry. There will be new methods of business in services that are targeted to get the investors money.

Is there a biblical basis? Yes, we reap what we sow.
In the US we have given away the steel industry, much of the auto industry, almost all of the computer industry, the machine tool industry, the list is endless.

My 2 cents

[labellady]

I'm a teamster....
While I never really thought about the Biblical position on strikes...I do participate....if I didn't the union would lose it's strength and ability to protect my job, salary and benefits...they would lose the strength to keep me working at a decent wage instead of minimum wage....etc...

anyhow...just my 2 cents...if my teamster brothers and sisters are on strike...I strike as well

My father was a truck driver and he belonged to the teamsters. :thumbsup:

[novcncy]

Just a thought....

Look what the unions have done to GM, the ariline industry, and how many companies have the forced off shore? Where is it proven that a welder DESERVES more than some PhD's earn? Unions have outlived there usefulness. There was a time, as ElderMike points out, when they were extremely helpful, and IMHO, they were essential to a point in US History. But now, they have outlived their usefulness.

I could go on an extrended diatribe, but I'm sure not many are interested in that. Suffice it to say, that labor unions remind me of the RC Church in the dark ages. "Don't read anything, don't be educated, don't work hard or strive for any ambitions of your own...We'll tell you all you need to know, we'll make sure you have a good job, and you just have to be a good boy and do as we say. And oh, by the way, don't cross us...." Anyway, it's not 1836, and we don't have folks pulling 16 hour shifts in the steel mills...because those are all in Aisa now, thanks to the unions.

[ZiSunka]

Hey, I think that forms of protest are necessary sometimes, and strikes are forms of protest against unfair company practices. If the company is being fair, no strike is necessary.

However, if the company is treating you fairly and not violating any safety practices or labor laws and you are going on strike just to exert power or make demands for more money, birthdays off with pay, free lunches, etc., then a strike is not a form of protest, but a temper tantram and you should not participate.

[arunma]

This really doesn't sound like a religious issue to me...

[ZiSunka]

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

[Dmckay]

I don't think I've seen this topic here, feel free to let me know if I'm wrong and I'll search for it.

What are your thoughts about going on strike? Our union contract is going to be up pretty soon and so negotiations will be starting up. I've got two sisters that work here and they've been here much longer than i have. Every time they say their contract is up, they also mention that there could be a strike...so I might be faced with my first strike. Then again, I could easily be jumping the gun. maybe it'll actually go smoothly. In any event, I need to figure out what the biblical thing to do is now before I we reach that point (if we reach it at all).

So my immediate thougth goes to Matthew 20, the parable of the workers in the vineyard. In this case, I should be content with what I have and not riot about it. Of course, I have options. I could go else where (if I think I'm really that valuable) and try to make more money.

On the other hand, it might be argued that this is just part of the game and therefore to be expected. I can also see why we might strike. I work for a university. The faculty have their own union and they don't seem to have a problem getting a raise or anything else that is beneficial (more vacation, etc.). The staff that has an "AP" position doesn't seem to have any problems doing the same. However, the secretarial staff (which I am a part of), seems to struggle in getting any kind of equality. Instead of having respect for us, we're treated like we are a dime a dozen. Not that I believe in the concept of "fair".

Anyhow, I thought I'd throw the question out and see if you guys had any thoughts about this one way or the other. Especially if you can back it up biblically:)

Thanks!I believe that Biblically, you have answered your own question with the passage in Matthew dealing with hiring practices. Unions had a purpose at one time, when there was organized corruption and collusion in labor practices. Now, there is pretty much an open market practice in labor relations. Except for those professions and areas where you are forced to join a Union to work. This just puts the corrupt shoe on the other foot.

For the most part, many individuals are in control of their value as a worker. If you make sure that everything you do, you do as unto the Lord, in other words, doing your very best no matter what the others might do, humble yourself, and the Lord will lift you up. The only places I have seen where this isn't true is where Unions have stepped in and tried to level the playing field and required that each worker receive the same compensation despite their ability or production.

[Willo]

Christians shouldn't strike in my opinion.

Its a bad witness to your employees.

[novcncy]

However, if the company is treating you fairly and not violating any safety practices or labor laws and you are going on strike just to exert power or make demands for more money, birthdays off with pay, free lunches, etc., then a strike is not a form of protest, but a temper tantram and you should not participate.

:D Sadly, it seems that what most strikes are about, nowadays. "I"m not getting paid enough!!!!"

[novcncy]

I believe that Biblically, you have answered your own question with the passage in Matthew dealing with hiring practices. Unions had a purpose at one time, when there was organized corruption and collusion in labor practices. Now, there is pretty much an open market practice in labor relations. Except for those professions and areas where you are forced to join a Union to work. This just puts the corrupt shoe on the other foot.

For the most part, many individuals are in control of their value as a worker. If you make sure that everything you do, you do as unto the Lord, in other words, doing your very best no matter what the others might do, humble yourself, and the Lord will lift you up. The only places I have seen where this isn't true is where Unions have stepped in and tried to level the playing field and required that each worker receive the same compensation despite their ability or production.

:amen: Great post. Very articulate and lucid. Totally agree.

[jcright]

I think the concept of fair is where i'm having the most problems. Although I wouldn't say my employer is cruel, I would say that my employer does not respect me like they do the faculty. The faculty can easily get a raise...but the secretaries cannot. See, now that's not fair. It's not a matter of "I should be paid what someone with a PHD makes", it's a matter of "I should get the same percentage increase that anyone else does". If I got that, then I would say that my employer is respecting me. After all, I do provide an important service. If I didn't, then I wouldn't have a job.

[novcncy]

I think the concept of fair is where i'm having the most problems. Although I wouldn't say my employer is cruel, I would say that my employer does not respect me like they do the faculty. The faculty can easily get a raise...but the secretaries cannot. See, now that's not fair. It's not a matter of "I should be paid what someone with a PHD makes", it's a matter of "I should get the same percentage increase that anyone else does". If I got that, then I would say that my employer is respecting me. After all, I do provide an important service. If I didn't, then I wouldn't have a job.

Hi jc,

Was respect part of your original work agreement? You gotta be careful about comparing yourself to others. Part of this is the labor market, you know? They can't replace faculty very easily, but what about the secretaries? What would happen if y'all walk out, and they just hire forty-two new secretaries from the local employment agency? Then you're without a job, and over what? Isn't having a low-paying job better than no job at all? Have you done some looking into the market? Are there other similar positions that pay more? Maybe you could get one of those. If they all pay around the same rate, then you might be stuck, strike or no strike. Anyway, good luck on ironing it all out. Hopefully, you will either find a better job, or maybe, if we all pray about it, you can get a raise without going on strike.

Take care.

[jcright]

novcncy,

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

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

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

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

[novcncy]

novcncy,

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

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

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

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

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

[Dmckay]

novcncy,

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

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

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

I think respect should be a part of anyone's job...that prevents someone from taking advantage of you in one form or another. Anyhow, I would say that it's just as important for me to do my job as it is for the instructors to do their jobs. If that weren't the case (which would be demonstrated by elimination of the position, not replacement of the person) then I would see why that person's position wouldn't have the same merit.
Did you agree to do your job for certain compensation? If you did, on what Biblical basis do you think that you can justify with holding the services you agreed to do for a set amount. You are trying to extort more for your services than you originally agreed to work for.

[arunma]

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

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

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

Christians shouldn't strike in my opinion.

Its a bad witness to your employees.

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

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

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

[Dmckay]

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

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



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



But what about employers who do not appropirately adjust their employees' wages to compensate for inflation and cost-of-living increases? Employers also have a Biblical obligation to treat their workers fairly, don't you agree?
Perhaps in some socialist utopia, (it isn't going to happen, by the way) but if the employer isn't a believer why would they even consider being bound by Biblical principles when many Christians can't consistantly follow them? Oh, I know, let's make a law that demands they do the right thing, but then, who decides what the right thing is?

[arunma]

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

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

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

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

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

[Dmckay]

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



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

By the way, what I'm about to say might sound irrelevant, but last time I expressed politically liberal beliefs on an Internet forum, other Christians started thinking that this liberality extended to my theology, and a few people assumed that I was some sort of godless pagan. So for those of you who (mistakenly) think that economics has anything to do with religion: yes, I do believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, Resurrection, and inerrency of the Scriptures, and I certainly consider myself a committed evangelical. All while being slightly opposed to capitalism!
I don't hold all, of even many workers to Christian standards, only Christians. The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned. Unless an employer or a laborer are believers, they have no ability to be able to understand or keep to Christian standards. Even most believers have a very hard time learning to walk in the Spirit and not by legalism.

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

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

Check it out, it is a matter of history.

[ZiSunka]

novcncy,

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

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

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

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

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

[jcright]

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

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

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

[novcncy]

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

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

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

Check it out, it is a matter of history.

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

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