

India Factory Workers Revolt, Kill Company President - Garbage
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/27/india-factory-workers-revolt-kill-company-president/

======
jdrols
Wow, that might be the worst lede I've ever seen in an article:

>Workers at the Regency Ceramics factory in the India raided the home of their
boss, and beat him senseless with led pipes after a wage dispute turned ugly.

Led pipes and "The India", seriously Forbes?

~~~
someone13
Not to nitpick, but the article has several other grammar mistakes:

> Curfew and other civil orders were imposed in Yanam because of the uprising
> led to the murder of the Regency president.

> Eight Regency Ceramics workers were injured in police firing that followed
> [...]

And so on. I think that they might have forgotten to send this to the editor
(not being sarcastic).

~~~
jeffool
Or maybe they used some automatic translation tool and it was posted
automatically when the foreign language version was posted?

~~~
jdrols
Seems too complicated. Personally, my bet is on an editor who is pulling in
some weekend hours and has had a few drinks. Gotta have a few rubber-stamped
articles to justify the double-pay for the last few hours of "work" ;)

------
martythemaniak
How about a more accurate title?

"Company president has police kill union boss, workers go on rampage and kill
president".

~~~
drats
"Has police kill union boss"? I don't see that anywhere in the article, some
people think it's the right of unions not only to strike but also to use force
(to block people entering workplaces). If they are legally not allowed to do
that (court order) and the police have to disperse them violently then the
police are just doing their job. And even if the police overstepped the mark
and used too much force I don't think murder of the owner is a valid solution.

~~~
martythemaniak
Well, we have no way of knowing whether he actually wanted him killed or
"just" savagely beaten, but it doesn't matter. Second degree murder is still
murder.

Now, if you think this was some kind of routine police enforcement action that
got out of hand and that the company boss had nothing to do with it, then I
don't think you know how things work, especially in places like India. The
police chief and top brass would most likely be part of the same social
circles and would look out for each other's interests. In corrupt places, the
power of the state is always readily available to the rich and powerful,
whether it's quelling a labour dispute in India or a low-interest Fed
borrowing window.

Now, when I first read the title I was struck that a company president would
be killed by workers, but after reading the article, it suddenly makes a lot
more sense, doesn't it?

Now that I think about it, it's also pretty sad that the killing of a labour
activist doesn't surprise or shock me, but the killing of an executive does.

~~~
yummyfajitas
In this case, the union leader and others were trespassing and attempting to
prevent others from peacefully selling labor at prices lower than his. The
police responded violently to prevent this. What's the problem?

It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle as
the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the fact
that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law.

If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him
with a lathi, would you similarly object?

~~~
bandushrew
"The police responded violently to prevent this."

"What's the problem?"

maybe that the police responded violently? and killed someone unnecessarily?

"It's sad that the factory owner needed to be part of the same social circle
as the police to have the rule of law enforced, but that doesn't change the
fact that the police were merely enforcing the rule of law."

If the rule of law allows for murder, then the rule of law is wrong and
operating under it is no defence.

"If a gang leader was trespassing inside a bank vault, and the police beat him
with a lathi, would you similarly object?"

yes? if the police have already caught him, what possible cause could they
have for beating him unnecessarily?

~~~
yummyfajitas
How do you know the union leader was killed unnecessarily? The article is
unclear on this point. All we know right now is that the union leader was
killed while engaging in criminal behavior.

Your version of the story may be correct, but you've presented no evidence of
it.

Similarly, in the hypothetical I raised, I made no claim as to whether the
gang leader was in custody. That's merely your assumption.

~~~
anthonyb
Please don't use phrases like "criminal behaviour". If you read the article,
he was killed by riot police while blockading the factory. Pretty standard
peaceful protest, standard procedure when the law doesn't do the right thing,
and should not be beaten down with clubs.

~~~
yummyfajitas
A blockade is criminal behavior. An angry mob does not have the right to
surround your house and prevent people from entering or leaving. Such activity
does not qualify as "peaceful". Trespass (which Rao was engaged in) is also
criminal behavior, as is rioting, destruction of property, etc.

[http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-
Reg...](http://expressbuzz.com/states/andhrapradesh/Workers-kill-Regency-
Ceramics-executive-in-Yanam/357751.html)

You may be right that the police used excessive force, but you've presented no
evidence of it. However, some force was clearly required.

~~~
yread
> A blockade is criminal behavior.

That isn't true even in the US. I suggest you go and read on wiki about strike
action which includes this helpful paragraph:

A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside
the workplace to prevent or dissuade people from working in their place or
conducting business with their employer. Less frequently workers may occupy
the workplace, but refuse either to do their jobs or to leave. This is known
as a sit-down strike.

And perhaps you can then go to the article on picketing, which is exactly what
these guys were doing.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_A strike may consist of workers refusing to attend work or picketing outside
the workplace to prevent or dissuade..._

If the non-workers prevent others from conducting business with their
employer, it's a blockade, and it's illegal. If they merely persuade, it's a
picket, and legal.

In both the US and India, you do not have the right to use violence against
the competition. It's illegal if you prevent people from entering a factory
and undercutting you, it's illegal if you sabotage the trucks of your
competitors, etc.

Further, a quick google search shows that sit-down strikes are illegal in the
US and India. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike>

[http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.ht...](http://www.indiatogether.org/combatlaw/vol2/issue6/strike.htm)

~~~
anthonyb
I just read through that India Together article. Very interesting, but it
doesn't support your position at all:

"The Rangarajan case simply ignores statutory provisions in the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and an equal number of case
laws laid down by larger benches that have recognized the right to strike. It
also fails to consider International Covenants that pave the way for this
right as a basic tenet of international labour standards."

and

"In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (v), Justice Ahmadi opined that "The Trade
Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more
effectively with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining
strength would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate
by adopting agitational methods such as 'work to rule', 'go-slow',
'absenteeism', 'sit-down strike', and 'strike'. This has been recognized by
almost all democratic countries"."

------
stickfigure
There is simply not enough information in the article to make any kind of
moral judgement on the people involved.*

* With the exception of Forbes' editors, who clearly deserve the bile posted. Led pipes? Really?

------
keeptrying
Recently forbes has started to stink big time.

Their articles are mostly lousy. Bad headlines. Hardly any editing done on the
story.

What happened? It used to be such a respectable magazine.

~~~
coryl
Perhaps web economics? The struggle to make money off quality content vs
pageview CPM model?

