Making any strike illegal is so weird to me, like it goes against the idea of a strike in my mind. Isn’t the entire point that they don’t want you to do it, it’s the power a group of people have over the tiny elite?
Absolutely, though a more accurate term is “unprotected.”
Basically, it’s not necessarily that workers would be criminally charged for participating in such strikes per se, but that the law doesn’t protect them from being retaliated against in other ways. For example, sit-in strikes don’t supersede property owners’ rights to have people removed for trespassing.
That said, IMO the Taft-Hartley Act’s prohibition on secondary strikes should absolutely be considered unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment right to freedom of association.
The legality of a strike determines whether or not the bosses get the cops on their side in the conflict and how much force they can use. Strikes have involved charging machine gun nests at points in American history so legal strikes are a nice compromise by power. Especially since the legality of certain strikes keeps most people from seeking to actually seize the means of production
I can see how it can be potentially problematic. For example, If I’m the owner of a shipping company what leverage do I have over Hollywood execs to pay writers and actors better?
The same powers all capitalists use over forces of governing.
By this logic, regulatory captured is impossible because an industry is only capable of influencing under its sphere. Government being influenced by capitalism is a direct proof of capitalists influence outside of their sphere of control.
The power of the people is unity to force the wealthy to act.
So to apply what you’re saying to my example: the shipping capitalist will use their lobbying influence to ”persuade” lawmakers to apply pressure on Hollywood executives to settle?
The two are unrelated, just happening confidently AFAIK. That said, the purpose of a widespread strike is to make people that would normally be unaffected pay attention. Grinding the economy to a halt forces action, at least in theory.
Business ties, lobbying ability, probably things I can’t think of because it’s not my area of expertise.
The entire world is interconnected in one way or another, even those tribes that have sealed themselves away from modern societies are affected by climate change or even just local environmental changes. Thinking that anyone could be wholly independent from anyone else is very shortsighted thinking.
Those Hollywood execs work for giant conglomerates that own a whole host of media properties including television stations. If the CEO of UPS, one of the largest, if not THE largest, shipping companies in the world, called up Viacom, for example, and said that UPS is going to pull advertising from all Viacom owned entities if they don’t give into SAG-AFTRA and WGA demands, that would do enough damage to potentially end the strike. It would cost Viacom millions of dollars on top of what they’re already going to lose from the strike.
But UPS isn’t going to do that because if striking works for anybody, they might have to pay their workers more.
I can see how it can be potentially problematic. For example, If I’m the owner of a shipping company what leverage do I have over Hollywood execs to pay writers and actors better?
Who cares? That’s the shipping company execs’ problem, not the workers’. More importantly, “potentially problematic” is far below the standard necessary to justify limiting workers 1st Amendment freedom of association!
@scrubbles In France if the CGT union is on strike that’s the entire country that collapses and thousands in the streets. Let’s not even talk about farmers, truckers or trains strikes. In the US, it’s 12 dudes in shorts with signs walking on a deserted sidewalk.
I thought solidarity strikes are illegal. What are they planning?
Making any strike illegal is so weird to me, like it goes against the idea of a strike in my mind. Isn’t the entire point that they don’t want you to do it, it’s the power a group of people have over the tiny elite?
I think this article puts it decently:
Basically, it’s not necessarily that workers would be criminally charged for participating in such strikes per se, but that the law doesn’t protect them from being retaliated against in other ways. For example, sit-in strikes don’t supersede property owners’ rights to have people removed for trespassing.
That said, IMO the Taft-Hartley Act’s prohibition on secondary strikes should absolutely be considered unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment right to freedom of association.
Thank you, this explanation makes the most sense to me
The legality of a strike determines whether or not the bosses get the cops on their side in the conflict and how much force they can use. Strikes have involved charging machine gun nests at points in American history so legal strikes are a nice compromise by power. Especially since the legality of certain strikes keeps most people from seeking to actually seize the means of production
I can see how it can be potentially problematic. For example, If I’m the owner of a shipping company what leverage do I have over Hollywood execs to pay writers and actors better?
The same powers all capitalists use over forces of governing.
By this logic, regulatory captured is impossible because an industry is only capable of influencing under its sphere. Government being influenced by capitalism is a direct proof of capitalists influence outside of their sphere of control.
The power of the people is unity to force the wealthy to act.
So to apply what you’re saying to my example: the shipping capitalist will use their lobbying influence to ”persuade” lawmakers to apply pressure on Hollywood executives to settle?
I’m saying its not the workers problems to solve. Our problems are our starving children and breaking backs.
Above, I’m simply stating what the original comment considered impossible is not logically sound.
The two are unrelated, just happening confidently AFAIK. That said, the purpose of a widespread strike is to make people that would normally be unaffected pay attention. Grinding the economy to a halt forces action, at least in theory.
Business ties, lobbying ability, probably things I can’t think of because it’s not my area of expertise.
The entire world is interconnected in one way or another, even those tribes that have sealed themselves away from modern societies are affected by climate change or even just local environmental changes. Thinking that anyone could be wholly independent from anyone else is very shortsighted thinking.
Those Hollywood execs work for giant conglomerates that own a whole host of media properties including television stations. If the CEO of UPS, one of the largest, if not THE largest, shipping companies in the world, called up Viacom, for example, and said that UPS is going to pull advertising from all Viacom owned entities if they don’t give into SAG-AFTRA and WGA demands, that would do enough damage to potentially end the strike. It would cost Viacom millions of dollars on top of what they’re already going to lose from the strike.
But UPS isn’t going to do that because if striking works for anybody, they might have to pay their workers more.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Who cares? That’s the shipping company execs’ problem, not the workers’. More importantly, “potentially problematic” is far below the standard necessary to justify limiting workers 1st Amendment freedom of association!
Fair enough
@scrubbles In France if the CGT union is on strike that’s the entire country that collapses and thousands in the streets. Let’s not even talk about farmers, truckers or trains strikes. In the US, it’s 12 dudes in shorts with signs walking on a deserted sidewalk.
@psychothumbs @itsJoelle @NOT_RICK
I was mistaken. They just so happen to also be striking here soon.