In Reply to: Re: Thake those coloured glasses off.... (COMPLETE) posted by Siamak on July 23, 1996 at 21:32:12:
> > Do you consider it better that those who work in McDs were
> > unemployed than working under the current regime? Remember,
> > many of those running this current campaign are Animal Rights Activists
> > and are unlikely to be concerned about the welfare of those working
> > in the meat industry. (check out some of the links from
> > the home pages)> I did much better than that & checked out ALL the links.
Well that's nice for you, but I was referring to those who were
orchestrating the campaign against McDonalds, not those running or
using the website. Had you taken the trouble to check, you'd
have discovered that there mission aim is *NOT* to improve the
working conditions of those employed by McDs, rather, it is to
close it down. Now, how about addressing the issue rather than
trying to obfuscate the issue by erroneously claiming that it is a
false dichotomy you are being presented with. There is nothing
false about it. So, one more time:You have stated that you see this McD campaign as 'useful'.
Given that the mission aim is to close McDs down, how is this
'useful' and how does it improve workers conditions in the company.
> outrage you & bring out the worst of your paranoid feelings about THE
> RADICAL ANTI-CAPITALIST MOVEMENT!Oh dear! You should learn to take things a bit more calmly..
[Rather weak attempt to pretend that there is a 'third way']
[On politics, 'capatalist vs workers' etc]
> ha ha ha, please don’t make me laugh. First of all, I did a simple analysis of your
> article - the one you are referring to above. Guess how much of it was devoted to
> attacking my imagined political views - about 2/3rd of it!Really? Where did you say you did maths again? Refer to my reply to Ben
when I snipped it all back to the bare message and you heaped the politics
back in. Now you complain when I tackle the politics claiming I'm focusing
on it? As I said, you introduced this with your headline about capatalists vs
workers header so spare me your objections.> So blame me if I focus on those subjects that you allocate most of your message to. So
> please, let’s have no more complaints about this.Oh you poor thing! First you pack the debate with political rhetoric, then
you claim it's *my* pet subject!> Secondly, you just can’t go around ascribing political views to your opponents on
> the basis of the flimsiest of evidenceetc..
Dear me. Pot kettle black familiar? Go check my reply to
your article on May22nd. I guess imitation is the truest form
of flattery. Now lets get on with the subject in hand.
You have still not answered the question.
Why is this campaign useful to workers when the mission aim of
those orchestrating it is to close down McDs?[rather strange rant about 'slander']
Don't you mean 'libel'?
> > Incidently, you didn't answer my question regarding Ronald
> > McDonald Houses .> I didn’t want to comment on a topic I don’t know enough about. But as a general
> rule, McD would not support any activity that does not push its unhealthy products.But its a rather expensive way to 'push its products' given the clientelle
and numbers using the facility. Nonethe less we'll drop this.Meanwhile consider the following:
Some months back, a number of women broke into a hanger and with
hammers wrecked a warplane intended to East Timor. They then waited,
were arrested and charged and found not guilty after trial on the
grounds that the crime they committed prevented an even greater crime
being commited. That one short action achieved far more for
"global socio-economic" change than two years of time and effort wasted
in this ridiculous harrassing a burger company.
No prizes for guessing who gets my vote of approval.> >either, nor the general point about
> > low pay and poor working conditions in the High St retail
> > sector or NHS.> This is a forum for discussion of McD related issues don’t forget.
Oh how poor! It was claimed that McDs workers were the worse paid in
the UK. It's quite clear that they aren't. Now you're ducking a pertinent
point. If you are going to make claims about relative pay and conditions
for McDs workers, then prepare for relative comparisons.
While on this subject, the following appeared in my local job
centre, there were three similar ads:Wanted: Hotel kitchen assistant. To assist in kitchen work and
cleaning duties elsewhere. 2:30 per hour. Hours 6 AM -
8:00 pm. Must be flexible.No prizes for guessing what 'must be flexible' means. There
are thousand in hotel work around the UK, *far* more than work
in McDs, in conditions that are low paid, un unionised and with
very little job security - most are contracted only for the
season. Given your apparent concern for the 'workers', why are you
not campaigning on *their* behalf instead of expending your efforts
on some American burger company?Now. I've made that less than 8 lines dealing with the politics, and
I've given you a couple of issues meaty enough to bite on,
so why not address them rather than skirting around them?