World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Labor strike: effective tool or annoying and delegitimized?
date
newest »





I agree with Ian.
I'd add, it's a very dangerous and oppressive world if labor can't organise to withdraw their labor.



For a second there I had an impression the strikes were outlawed somehow, but I see that it relates to certain categories and differs by states, if to believe wikipedia on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_...


I think so too and I guess it's one of the tools that contributed into shaping the modern labor relations to distance them from slavery.
Amusing how often it's used in traditionally capitalist (or maybe not anymore?) France or Italy, and how strikes almost disappeared from the former land of the proletariat. Speaking of which, Happy Labor Day (non-American version)

An interesting thing about strikes is that our required notification and eventually, if everyone is being held hostage, independent arbitration is required, has made strikes very unusual here. When I was somewhat younger, strikes on the Cook Strait ferries (the only way to get things like cars between the two main Islands) were common around the start of school holidays. Those who suffered, of course, were those who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Fortunately, that behaviour can't work now.

An interesting thing about strikes is that our required..."
Generally, strikes must be called for and that gives notice. It is a game. I do not think they work over the long haul, but it is really the only way to capture notice of the company. when I was with the teamsters, we had a work slow down to prove a point. It lasted exactly 2 hours and the management stopped what they were doing to the guys.

Interestingly, the complaints by local parents was to complain that the teachers chose to do it near the end of the school year because that affected their kids' college entries, summer plans, military families who were on orders to elsewhere (we are a military town). They felt the teachers should have picked a more convenient time. If it were done at the convenience of society then once again they would have been ignored.
I live in an area that has a mining history. There is a documentary on Prime called the Bisbee 19. It continues to amaze me how common place it has been in American history, be it West Virginia or Arizona (or many other states), for the government to send in troops to stop labor and unions. It has consistently been legalized for mining companies to hire private parties to "enforce" workers and prevent unionization.
I live in a right to work state. Employees have very few rights. Unfortunately, unions can also be more political than looking to the needs of its members. Without the organization of a large class of employees, there is no means to negotiate for reasonable packages. I think some of the issues that unions are utilized for could be resolved if - 1) America had healthcare for everyone and 2) some means for all workers to have a compensation package that includes being able to have a reasonable amount to live on upon retirement. Social security isn't enough.
A side note --- My daughter is a teacher. She refused to stay in AZ because of how poorly we treat our teachers and the payscale being so low. In WI, yes, like all teachers, she has provided for her own supplies, works on stuff from home because the work day doesn't allow enough time for teachers to prepare lessons, etc. She is a union member and she has healthcare and retirement plan negotiated by the union. She finished her Masters Degree in Education and Technology this month at John Hopkins (she got a full ride based on her efforts and application). Her BA included grants for which she in turn has agreed to work in impoverished areas for 5 years. She teaches high school sciences at a school that is 407 out of 421 in Milwaukee for at-risk students. It scares me the stories she tells me about the violence, including one of her students being shot.

Sounds oppressive in this respect
Lizzie wrote: "...Her BA included grants for which she in turn has agreed to work in impoverished areas for 5 years..."
Hmm, interesting. Sounds exactly like Soviet system - free education for which one needed to work first two years after graduation at a location determined by the government (the best students were exempted though and could have chosen where to proceed)


Interesting word, convenient. Convenient for whom? Maybe inconvenience is the entire point.
Uncomfortable, annoying, but maybe on the other hand, who's gonna care for the employees if not they for themselves? What do you think?