Transport Strike On Tuesday?

[citygirl]

The strikers want a minimum wage of ar$5000 and the goverment to takle inflation.

Was that directed towards me? I know the reasons behind the protest. My question to GS_Dirtboy was what does cutting off highways, etc have to do with achieving those goals? What is the correlation between highways and living wage?

 

[solerboy]

Was that directed towards me?

No it wasnt directed towards you. It was a general statement.

I posted it because to me it is an oxymoron.

 

[citygirl]

Got it and that's a good point - they want a huge increase in line with inflation and inflation to go away. Speaking of cakes and eating them too

 

[trennod]

Luckily on "home office" today. The strikers also want a lift in the cutoff for impuestos a ganancias.

I agree with citygirl, I respect their rights to protest but causing a quilombo in the city to create further publicity and be heard by the government...typical Argentina B)

 

[Rich One]

1) You can't compare the civil rights movement to this.
2) Inconveniencing people is NOT a way to gain support. All it does is alienate the very people you are trying to reach.
3) There is NO correlation between blockading a highway and wanting higher wages. If you are angry at company, gov't, whatever - go and protest outside of that institution.
4) The key is media coverage. Which again, has nothing to do with piqueteros.
5) NO Argentine is calling their politician and saying "fix this" because the streets are blocked.

Again, I fully support people's right to protest. But their rights DON'T supercede everyone else's rights. There are plenty of places and ways to protest.

You are talking about black people eating in whites-only diners during the civil rights movemnt. Segregation being a key thing the movement was attempting to end. So targeting a place that practices segregation made sense no? Didn't inconvenience anyone.

Please - educate me what blocking off a highway and burning tires is supposed to achieve? What does it have to do with the reasons behind the protest? What is the correlation?

Blocking roads is part of the local culture, it shows muscle , I don't agree , but must be read in the local context.

No comparison with the civil rights movement protests, which was more than seating im white-only resto or the front of the bus.
The protest envolved looting, arson, damage and violence against property and individuals, 24 hour curfews. Perhaps you weren't in the Newark or Watts Riots?

PD. The correct expresion is African Americans,

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]You are talking about black people eating in whites-only diners during the civil rights movemnt. Segregation being a key thing the movement was attempting to end. So targeting a place that practices segregation made sense no? Didn't inconvenience anyone.[/background]

 

[citygirl]

Snort.. I'll skip the PC and in the context of whites-only, there is a reason I used black. And I don't use the phrase "african american" as a rule unless we're discussing someone's ethnic background in which case I would still refer to a specific country, not a continent.

I'm aware of what the civil rights movement was about and again - I was responding to a specific incident brought up (ie, a whites-only diner).

And this strike which is centered around complaints about cost of living , salaries and inflationhas NOTHING to do with the civil rights movement. It's beyond apples and oranges, it's like apples and steak.

 

[majortungsten]

I totally agree with Citygirl. Holding a city hostage, regardless of the cause, is no way to gain sympathy and understanding. There are proper ways of going on strike, and stopping people earning a living is not the right way. Higher wages and tackling inflation are noble reasons for striking, but making the lives of people even more difficult will only develop animosity in the place of understanding.

And call me a pessimist, but with the strikers on the street and CFK in the casa, there is going to be absolutely no change from the status quo. After today life will go back to normal, because not one person on either side is wiling to listen - and the rest of us poor schmucks are stuck in the middle.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

1) You can't compare the civil rights movement to this.
2) Inconveniencing people is NOT a way to gain support. All it does is alienate the very people you are trying to reach.
3) There is NO correlation between blockading a highway and wanting higher wages. If you are angry at company, gov't, whatever - go and protest outside of that institution.
4) The key is media coverage. Which again, has nothing to do with piqueteros.
5) NO Argentine is calling their politician and saying "fix this" because the streets are blocked.

Again, I fully support people's right to protest. But their rights DON'T supercede everyone else's rights. There are plenty of places and ways to protest.

You are talking about black people eating in whites-only diners during the civil rights movemnt. Segregation being a key thing the movement was attempting to end. So targeting a place that practices segregation made sense no? Didn't inconvenience anyone.

Please - educate me what blocking off a highway and burning tires is supposed to achieve? What does it have to do with the reasons behind the protest? What is the correlation?

citygirl,

1. I wasn't comparing any movement. I was using the civil rights protests as an example of pushing on pressure points, not comparing the validity of any movement or another which is what it seems you are reacting to.
2. It's not (all) about gaining people's support. It is about getting attention and putting pressure.
3. This is really about Moyano flexing his muscle and showing CFK what he can do. No correlation is needed between burning tires and higher wages.
4. Media coverage is an element of the protests, but not the central point. See 3 above.
5. I bet CFK's office is pretty busy right about now.

Sidenote: If you lived in the South (and in some Northern urban areas) during the 60's you would remember roads being cut, buses and trains stopped, picket lines, strikes, etc. And, if you think that blacks sitting in a whites-only cafe in Alabama in 1963 didn't inconvenience anyone you are surely mistaken.

On the point of being PC we seem to agree.

 

[John.St]

The good thing about Argentine protests and strikes - from the politicians' view - is that when people have screamed, shouted, blown whistles, hammered on drums, pots and pans, they have burned their anger away and nobody have to do anything to change society - everything is forgotten with a nice feeling of inner peace after having blown steam off.

Anyone who wants to change the political scene, including in Argentina, must drop a small proportion of their time with friends in a café or in the sofa watching television, and spend a few hours a month as a member of a political party. This is where one gets rid of worthless and corrupt politicians and nominate better candidates to be disposed of if they are like the previous bunch.