3 ms·

> why are they legal Worker strikes arent something you can legislate away unless you're going to start forcing people to work, which is, uh, let's say widely

> why are they legal Worker strikes arent something you can legislate away unless you're going to start forcing people to work, which is, uh, let's say widely frowned upon. If you want to end strikes, you'll need to convince workers that showing up is in their interest.

ericpauley 6y ago
Banning striking need not involve forced labor. See the US government's response to federal employees striking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Con...
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Sure, but the original question was why is striking legal. Firing people for striking isn't the same as criminalizing it. If you're responding to my statement of "can't legislate it away", then I suppose yes you're right that is an example of being able to do that and I should have worded that differently, but the key there is that it only works if your threat convinces the workers to return. Which, according to that Wikipedia article, it didn't entirely and their staffing levels didn't fully recover for a decade.
dybber 6y ago
In Denmark you're only allowed to strike under certain circumstances, and primarily strikes happen every three years when collective agreements between unions and employers needs to be renewed. This makes strikes a rare happening, and usually very predictable. See: https://tema.3f.dk/bjmfimmigrant/new-in-denmark/are-you-allowed-to-strike https://tema.3f.dk/bjmfimmigrant/new-in-denmark/are-you-allo...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway201103 6y ago
When your employer is the government and you can vote out your bosses, why do you need a union and strikes?
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Your premise is wrong because there are many people in the voting population who do not work for the government, let alone as members of the same working group. E.g, a bus drivers union can't on their on their own dictate who the mayor is.

ericpauley 6y ago

Banning striking need not involve forced labor. See the US government's response to federal employees striking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Con...

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
Sure, but the original question was why is striking legal. Firing people for striking isn't the same as criminalizing it. If you're responding to my statement of "can't legislate it away", then I suppose yes you're right that is an example of being able to do that and I should have worded that differently, but the key there is that it only works if your threat convinces the workers to return. Which, according to that Wikipedia article, it didn't entirely and their staffing levels didn't fully recover for a decade.

dybber 6y ago

In Denmark you're only allowed to strike under certain circumstances, and primarily strikes happen every three years when collective agreements between unions and employers needs to be renewed. This makes strikes a rare happening, and usually very predictable. See: https://tema.3f.dk/bjmfimmigrant/new-in-denmark/are-you-allowed-to-strike https://tema.3f.dk/bjmfimmigrant/new-in-denmark/are-you-allo...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

throwaway201103 6y ago

When your employer is the government and you can vote out your bosses, why do you need a union and strikes?

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
Your premise is wrong because there are many people in the voting population who do not work for the government, let alone as members of the same working group. E.g, a bus drivers union can't on their on their own dictate who the mayor is.