Comments:Vestas occupation continues; left-wing political parties voice support

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

On the lately quite beleaguered concept of rights

These occupying workers are quite transparently disregarding the property rights of the owners and investors of Vestas, and of Vestas itself. However, like so many people that disrespect the rule of law these days, they of course attempt to commandeer the concept of rights for their own defense. Now I am, by virtue of my Libertarian allegiances, very sensitive to rights, and very attentive to claims that they are being violated, however I've observed a disturbing trend that's actually eroding the entire concept of rights: people are simply taking any vague, generic, egalitarian-sounding notion and creating it a "right" whenever it is convenient. I am at a loss to trace the principled origin of the "right" to be fed and coddled by people whose own well-established rights you are trampling. If the workers wanted food, they could desist from their illegal conduct and thereby easily attain it. They seem to believe that they should be protected from the consequences of their own actions (such as voluntarily occupying a plant that doesn't have sufficient provender to provide them), which idea should send a dubious signal whenever it is encountered (all too frequently in the current economic climate).

The response of the authorities is also disturbing. If the comments in this article are to be taken as a representative aliquot of the official commentary, count me disturbed that nobody is actually advancing the enforcement of the law and the vindication of the only cognizable rights that are in fact being violated: those of the property owners. Instead, as far as I can see, the politicians are all too busy debating whether or not Vestas is a nice corporation and its actions sufficiently sensitive and PC. Rights, by definition, do not depend on whether one is within the current political zeitgeist, and to make them so dependent is to nullify their meaning, because people with such favor are unlikely to need rights to protect them in the first place. Instead of treating Vestas's rights with due solemnity, legislators instead condemn their exercise of their freedom of association (to choose which persons they want to maintain in the status of employees or engage other financial relationships and negotiations with) as "totally unacceptable," and brush aside their property rights as though rights were a matter of give and take. "Oh, well, since you are so unreasonable, and cannot be brought to compromise on this right, you can hardly expect us to enforce this other right of yours."

Bottom line: it seems at least that those who trumpet rights the loudest are the self-same people who want to inflict on them the gravest injury and selective neglect. I hope this skepticism of mine will yield, as it should, when real violations of real rights occur. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Politicians are anguishing over this and not urging forceful eviction of the workers because they're not in the employ of corporations. Their job is to serve the people who elect them and work in the best interests of the country. You seem to be saying that Libertarianism equates to more voting power the more capital you have. I think you'll find that's corporate fascism.

I won't dispute they're breaking the law with the occupation, but otherwise the proposed closure would be a ten second snippet on the late night news. A protest highlights the situation and people get time to think about what it means. To me as a Brit it means the company will move - penalty free - to where a totalitarian regime (China) provides near-slave labour prices and thus make higher profits. That seems unethical to start with. In the longer term it means that when the British taxpayer actually wants these wind turbines for eco power then all the money paid for them will be going abroad - no local workers ploughing their income back into the economy, no local taxes on the company's profits, and the fairly environmentally un-friendly issue of shipping built turbines halfway round the world. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If the workers were just occupying some guy's house, while he was still living in it, and for no reason, would you say taking his side over theirs was fascism of some kind? Is it the plight of the workers which makes it, to your mind, fascism not to support their occupation of somebody else's land? 31 voters may all have equal voting power, but that doesn't ordinarily mean that the first 30 are allowed to use their combined power to sit heavily on the last one, in a literal sense. (Unless they voted for a government which made a new law allowing this.) 81.131.69.88 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do the owners of the plant own the plant anymore than the workers? After all if anything the workers work harder to sustain itSoapy (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's likely that there are more directors and managers of Vestas than there are workers occupying the plant, and then what happens to your argument about politicians responding to voters and people having equal voting power? I suppose you might say that there is a great mass of public support for the workers, and that politicians should respond to the power of all those voters. Then it just becomes a massive free-for-all as voters of various ideological alignments attempt to use their votes to trample on one another's rights; which is horribly close to the truth, but isn't the way things ought to be. 81.131.69.88 (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree (unsurprisingly, since I'm a libertarian). One point, though, is that the punishment of a trespasser ought to be proportional to the harm caused by the trespassing, and if they aren't doing any measurable material harm, they are free to continue - or if the harm is very small, it's not worth the trouble of punishing. I don't really grasp what the situation is at the Vestas plant. Presumably the 30 workers are causing serious harm - at least, the need for a double ring fence doesn't sound very convenient for business, and there is the falling share price. So why can't they - for a start - be bodily picked up and slung out by security? Is it a matter of getting some kind of court order for them to leave, before this can be done without fear of the security guards being prosecuted for assault? Are the workers too aggressive to be manhandled, even by the riot police? 81.131.69.88 (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but democracy has been described as "three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". 'Corporate fascism' is a more populist term used to refer to situations where the power of government is used to support corporate goals - generally the push to profit regardless of the impact on an area's economy or inhabitants.

Well, I'm no advocate of unrestrained democracy. In fact, this whole topic I started would be pointless if the controlling principle were always majority, because that would make all rights nugatory. I don't see what democracy has to do with the topic at hand actually. Let's say the government is an oligarchy instead. Would that change the fact that it's wrong to ignore the law and the basic rights people have to their property? As to the second part, if I understand your definition correctly, saying I stole some goods from the local Wal-Mart and the police interfered in my abstraction of those goods, that would be an instance of corporate fascism, since the government is being used to support the goals of a corporation - Wal-Mart - to possess and to traffic in household merchandise. In fact, the existence of corporations is corporate fascism, since the government furthers their goals of establishing a charter and a legal structure to conduct enterprise. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where you come up with the 'theft from Wal-Mart' comparison. Your argument is to pull up laws that are not in dispute, say they should be religiously enforced, then say this is no different. In effect, the workers are wage slaves and have no stake in what they helped create. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand the scope of these terms you're introducing. It seems quite important to explore their extent if you in effect propose to condition the authority of law on the presence or absence of these labels. Here you've introduced "wage slavery" which is another along the same lines. You've repudiated the natural extension of your terminology because that would introduce matters that, according to you, are not in dispute. However, if these terms have no meaning that can be generalized to other situations, then they're just convenient proxies for "the X's should not have equal protection of the law because I don't like them." 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Were security staff working for Vestas to physically eject the plant occupiers there is a risk they could be charged with assault, and from the company's perspective it would be a PR disaster to have evening news coverage of people being manhandled off the premises. They'll leave it to the police, and the police will only act once the appropriate legal motions have been gone through. That might be a judge or magistrate ruling their occupation illegal, it might just be serving a notice to get out and waiting for a deadline to expire, or the company may have to go through the process of firing the employees so they can prosecute for trespass.

Well, I must say I don't like the contours of that situation. As a hypothetical, assume that there is anarchy. Then the workers could occupy the facility, but the corporation would have a natural recourse, namely force. The only difference in the present situation is the removal of this recourse. The government assumes the role of exercising that recourse - force - on our behalf through the mechanism of law. If the law's protections are ignored with respect to someone, then that entity is subject to the vagaries of anarchy, while the rest are protected from his retaliation by the law. This is a two-faced system that establishes anarchy for some and protection for others. It's worse than the state of nature, because it lacks even the benefit of being even-handed. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The logical extension of your argument is to globally adopt American principles - "Trespassers will be shot, survivors that do not crawl off the property will be shot again". This is not a place of residence, the board and directors don't live in the plant. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not a logical extension of my argument. Rather, it's an intellectually dishonest one that has no basis in what I said and does not follow as a consequence. Also, this "American principle" is in fact not the way trespass is treated in America, but only your own interpretation that seems to be based in xenophobia. There's really no way I can argue against what you're saying without merely restating my previous argument because the defect is that you're mis-characterizing what I said. It's a straw man. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt the workers occupying the plant are destructive, threatening, or violent - a double fence does not indicate that to me. They want the plant to reopen and continue working, it would not be in their interests to cause damage.

Forcing someone to perform an economic action which is not in his interest, such as operating an uneconomical facility, is a ridiculous ultimatum. It's akin to slavery. Or perhaps the government should take the property and operate it itself, which is theft? Presumably, if the government were willing to buy at a market rate (not theft) this situation would not have arisen. Purchase at some sub-market rate is merely theft of the difference from market value. The demands of the workers seem rather extortionate to me. Extortion is usually classified as a violent crime. In this case the extortion is accomplished by forcible occupation and holding hostage of another's facilities.209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Define "uneconomical"? There is a market in the UK and Europe for the plant's products. What's causing outrage is the general opinion that this is "Plant in UK makes x% profit" but someone in the company says, "rip it up, move it to China, and we can make x%+ profit". That's cold, calculating, callous, and cruel to workers who you might presume have given labour and loyalty to the company. Does the company have no moral or social obligation to the community that has supported them?--Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "uneconomical" is a nebulous term. It means not in the economic interest of the relevant party. If it were in fact economical to continue operating the plant, there would be no reason to move it elsewhere. Continued operation is, however, uneconomical in light of the opportunity cost incurred by not building a factory that can operate with better margins. Are you trying to say that as long as someone is turning a profit, it's economical to continue the current practice even if there are obvious alternatives that would produce a better return? 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As to physical numbers as a method of deciding the dispute - it just doesn't work. Less occupying workers than shareholders? More supporters of the workers than shareholders? It is tyranny of the majority one way or the other. Whose best interests are served by any specific decision or action?

Truly a question for the ages: one we could debate until we turn blue. Instead let's just leave people free to decide what's in their own best interest so they can individually bear that cognitive load and meanwhile use our collective resources to ensure that they leave each other free to seek those interests, which may include building wind turbines somewhere other than the instant place. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"I was just following orders." Bernie Madoff is about the only corporate fat-cat I can think of who has taken responsibility for acting in his own interests when they weren't in others. The rest? Like the bankers, and the car company executives? "It wasn't me! Everyone else did it! I met my targets for the quarter!" --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Freedom to pursue one's interest clearly does not include freedom to frankly defraud people a la Madoff. He's, however, a red herring, because he is in fact in the process of being legally proceeded against for his behavior. I don't, however, see any argument advanced that Vestas has been defrauding its investors or cooking its books. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you start digging down into who has a right to actually have a say on this it gets more murky. If Vestas is publicly traded you'd expect a lot of the company stock to be held by retirement/pension funds. Should the fund managers out to maximise return tell Vestas to go ahead with the closure, or should the fund members have a say on a lower profit to keep the firm operating in the UK?

That would depend on a lot of irrelevant corporate governance minutiae, but we can assume that the executives of a company act in the interest of the shareholders, since otherwise those shareholders would bail or oust the management. Of course, principal-agent problems do happen, and this system can become degenerate when operated in bad faith, but again I don't see the relevance or any indication that this situation obtains. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to face up to the consequences of their actions. I feel this is what the Vestas workers are doing. By bringing publicity to the planned closure the company is being shamed in the press for seeking the biggest return in the shortest time for the least investment. That 'race to the bottom' again. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The workers are certainly free to rouse all the publicity they want or can get, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to invade and occupy somebody else's property to do so. People should experience the consequences of their actions, but those consequences should not include spiteful and illegal actions by people who are unhappy with a decision. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was born, grew up in, and after some years in mainland Europe, am now back in Scotland. I would describe my political outlook as Socialist, and view the fact that less than 5% of the population own at least 90% of the wealth as appalling. I hate seeing essential services and infrastructure being run and developed on a for-profit basis, particularly utilities like water, electricity, gas, transport and communications. Even the uber-capitalist United States recognises that something like a universal postal service should put public interest before profit.

Given that outlook, I would never accept comparing the situation here to someone occupying your home while you're still trying to live in it. This is a corporation, and I think corporate personhood is one of those aberrations in law that is unfair to the wider population. All too often it leads to companies being corporate psychopaths. Best for them, and damn the social consequences. If you want corporate personhood there should be a 'corporate death penalty'. This is not a case for it, but it highlights a need and desire for a discussion on what is appropriate here. This is just another example of globalisation manifesting itself as a 'race to the bottom'. This is counter to the hundreds of years of fighting for worker's rights. Were laws not challenged and changed, or had been rigidly enforced, do you think anyone outside that richest few percent of the population would now be living to over 50? Or, do you think there would have been a bloody revolution as in Russia?

So, who decides what is right? Should it be what is right for the workers? What is right for society? Or what is right for Vestas? Callously applying the law is forgetting that civilisation is three meals away from anarchy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Laws that are ignored whenever our sympathy is quickened are not laws at all, but rules of preference, favor and emotional response. These provide no firm guidance for what we can and cannot do, therefore subjecting people to the whims and fancies of arbitrary governance and to post hoc judgments that are in fact unjust because they cannot be predicted. It is not callous to enforce principles that we can all agree to abide by, principles that can act as a bedrock upon which we build our endeavors. A society that vacillates to and fro, tacking in the doldrums of relativism, will never be fair to anyone and will not encourage productive behavior. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And blind obedience to the letter of the law is to walk into slavery. A handful of workers can't "buy" a law, but companies have been doing it for decades. The very notion of a company is a privilege granted by the government acting on behalf of the public. Your notion of the rights of the company trumping the entire local community is the same logic that allows landowners in third-world countries to dig a hole in the ground and charge to fill it up with toxic waste. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Laws that can be ignored whenever we attach a pejorative label to the beneficiary of the law are not in fact laws. Your argument would make all laws illegitimate since corporations can simply buy them out, with the result that we're back to anarchy. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I do not put things as articulately as those who have expressed views I agree with. Was Gandhi unreasonable in urging Indians to spurn British made cloth? Was he wrong to make salt from the sea when the law ruled it illegal without payment of a tax? Law isn't cast in stone like some tablets the crazy guy brought down off the mountain. If it cannot be questioned or challenged then we cut babies in half in our little totalitarian regime. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

hey Brian McNeil stop making fun of the bible and using blasphemy.--208.114.130.122 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When you ask if he was wrong to make salt, you're confusing two different issues. My previous comments were about the government enforcing its own laws. If we change the question to be about the government, we're asking "Should the government ignore the law it has against making salt from the sea if Gandhi violates it?" which is less clear-cut. Whether laws are just is another issue entirely apart from the first, and the prior topic. Clearly, disobedience of unjust laws is at least sometimes justified. How can we tell an unjust law? It doesn't protect any valid right, but instead infringes on those rights. Would you argue that the law against trespasses to other people's property doesn't protect a valid right? Would you argue that about the salt making law? I'd say no to the former, yes to the latter. In that case, the latter law should be deleted. It shouldn't be selectively ignored or kept on the books to be applied only for people we like or against those we don't. In your offensive stone tablet analogy, you seem again to be conflating ignoring the law and changing the law. We can change the law, and should change it where it is unjust by being too restrictive or by not protecting people from incursions upon their own rights. It's a separate matter to say the government should ignore the authority of its own laws. 209.30.177.37 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the arguments about social responsibility and property rights (easy for most of us, as we don't actually own property or a company), the ultimate goal of this occupation seems to be a call for nationalization of the factory. Surely, for the observer with a modicum of economics knowledge, this is where the argument breaks down. First, the government would be required by their own laws to pay a fair price for the property, which might require them to match or exceed a competitive private bid. This serves the ultimate profit line of Vestas just fine, so there is no "revenge" to be had by this action. Even assuming a full government seizure with no compensation for Vestas, they are no doubt already prepared for the construction and launch of a factory in China, which means they will still be producing wind turbines at reasonable prices. The British factory, meanwhile, is now going to be run according to the specifications of the government, without the benefit of the former management structure (the majority of management will move on to better jobs, guaranteed). The odds of their being able to compete with the private corporations involved in the UK markets are heavily stacked against them, and the workers in this nationalized factory will very likely face layoffs, overtime, and a general decrease in quality of life. Since this is a government project now, the workers' compensation will have to be provided by the government - therefore, from taxpayers. If taxpayers do not see a hefty return on their investment, is it fair to assume they will still be completely concerned with the welfare of these workers? The bottom line is, you can't have it both ways. It is unconsciable to force a corporation to conform to the will of "socially aware" interests. Nobody is owed a living in this world, and the workers that are currently receiving free food in exchange for flaunting a violation of the law have a responsibility to themselves to dust themselves off and seek work elsewhere. If the plant is that important to them, perhaps they would be well-served to open their own plant and see what it's like to be an owner.

Vestas occupation

Baisicly this is what its like. Say you where renting a house out to somebody. After a while you decided to sell the house so you gave the tenant warning the they would have to move out in a couple weeks Instead of moving out they decide to "occupy" the house and you can't do anything about it. If you go in and forcefully kick them out they can press charges. Sometimes this human rights stuff goes way to far.--208.114.130.122 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)