Violence or property damage at protests II

Sorry... fetching some lunch.  :)

Quote:

No, I am quite resolutely against the unlawfull confinement of anyone-- even a boss. 

 I'd agree. Not to bicker, though, but when you say "

The best way for bosses to protect their liberty and property is to protect everyone's liberty and property, as if it was their own." you're really justifying the kidnapping, unless you're only saying it would be in their best interests. I'd agree that it would be, but at the same time in my head I'm hearing "Nice place you've got here... [i]it'd be a shame if something terrible were to happen to it[/i]." That's another time where going along is likely in your best interest.

 

Quote:

What if we got 30% of the popular vote, and then passed a law saying it was okay to kidnap the boss, would it be okay then, Snert?

No, in that you'd be proposing a popular vote (with a pretty low threshold, too, I might add) that would effectively serve to override Charter or UN human rights, specifically, the right to liberty, deprived of "only in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice".
If our right to liberty were just another law, like the one that says you can't put your recycling out the day before, and if there were a more realistic majority, I'd say yes. I generally believe societies to have the right to arrange those laws as they see fit. If 50% of the relevant lawmaking body were to say that in lieu of kidnapping the boss, employees are free to help themselves to furniture, computers and other assets, I'd be fine with that.
And just to add, before this thread collapses into a black hole, that I would wholeheartedly agree with any law, in France or here, that mandated that in cases of corporate insolvency, the employees get paid out first, not last. So I agree that the state could provide more clarity, and a bit of leadership.

And, now I must reliquish the floor.  Work awaits.

Quote:

I think using the term 'kidnapping' is a little over the top, even if in some hairsplitting way it fits the definition.

 
Hahaha! "Hairsplitting"???
 
I'm using the term to refer to detaining someone against their will in order to extract demands. You're telling me that it's a bit of a stretch to apply that to cases where managers are detained against their will in order to extract demands?
 

Quote:

Power relations in the circumstance of a factory closing are lopsided, the playing field is not even

 
As most collective agreements will acknowledge, "management has the right to manage". So, yes. Staff don't share in that right.
 

Quote:

So just what are workers supposed to do when some management hairstyle sits down opposite and - from a position of near total power - tries to fuck them out of a fair settlement so management can hang onto a larger slice?

Evidently, anything they wish. And that's where your argument loses all moral high ground. If you're going to empower people to take the law into their own hands any time they feel like they got dealt with unfairly, you're opening a can of worms that I wouldn't think progressives would want to clean up. Lots of people get the short end of the stick, and for the most part, nobody endorses their "right" to some kind of vigilantism. Until now!

Quote:

Bend over?

Why not? A little sex might bring some levity to a tense situation.
Uh, you weren't really suggesting there's something wrong with sex, were you?
Added, for the record: as I said in another thread, I think it should be the law of the land that if a company hits the skids, the employees back pay, severance and pensions are paid out first, not last. You ask what can be done? I'd say aim for that. It's a much better long term plan than taking the law into your own hands.

Quote:

Speaking of hypocrisy and keeping the "moral high ground." What happened to your rant about the use of anti-sexual metaphors, with possible homophobic connotations?

 

You can only fight a battle on so many fronts at once. Trust me, it still looks very ugly to see gay/female sex used as the gold standard of submissiveness and cowardice on a progressive board.