On the Bernews live-feed about the developments around the mass strike, there was a comment that a pamphlet was being passed around advocating a boycott of products brought in by Dunkley’s Dairy, as an attempt of showing solidarity with the workers and to send a message to Premier Dunkley.
The image of the pamphlet in question is here – I’m not sure how clear all of the products are in the picture though.
Now, the argument for the boycott is as I wrote above – send a message to the Premier and hit his bank account.
Arguments against such a boycott is that any hit to the Premier’s bank account (in as much as Dunkley’s Dairy is family owned by him) will be pushed onto workers there – so in showing solidarity with one group of workers one would be hurting another group.
Pros and cons.
In a way I guess one could look at it by taking an extreme example – the boycott of goods under Apartheid South Africa.
The con was that it would hurt the very people it was intended to help, by doing Blacks out of a job and a wage.
Now, that is, of course, an extreme example, and I’m in no way comparing Dunkley’s Dairy to Apartheid South Africa. It’s just one of the most famous examples of a consumer boycott movement.
So, to boycott or not to boycott? Is this an additional ‘weapon’ in the class war we’re seeing unfolding dramatically before us?