6 ms·

It was an illegal strike so I am pretty sure he is not being sarcastic. They had "civil service" clauses in their contract that made them "Federal employees" an

It was an illegal strike so I am pretty sure he is not being sarcastic. They had "civil service" clauses in their contract that made them "Federal employees" and Federal employees could not strike (not sure if that is true today).

fishtacos 6y ago
It absolutely is. The courts have their take on it, as expected, but the spirit of a strike remains consistent despite laws against it. A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee. Whether existing legislation recognizes certain types of strikes as legal or not is irrelevant. Civil disobedience has deep roots in American history. This is an analogue to that, given that their rights to strike have been struck. (pun intended)
- ameister14 6y ago
  Could you explain how a strike cannot, by definition, be illegal? Civil disobedience can be illegal.
  - fishtacos 6y ago
    All civil disobedience is illegal, yet you seem to adjust for some of it vs. others. Extend that to all employment. Nothing illegal about not being forced to work. A contract is not a prison sentence, or I should hope so. I will grant you certain conditions apply to armed forces that wouldn't otherwise apply to civilian employment, as that does actively put other's lives at risk. This isn't a conversation about desertion of duty, merely protesting or quitting. Even then there are laws that protect conscientious objectors .
- throwaway0x1 6y ago
  >A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee. Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee.
  - fishtacos 6y ago
    A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. It's an established form of protest which may or may not lead to firing. Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is not illegal, nor is walking out of a job. At least from both a moral standpoint.
    - fishtacos 6y ago
      *At least from a moral standpoint.
    - throwaway0x2 6y ago
      >A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal. >It's an established form of protest which may or may not lead to firing. Wrong. It's an established form of protest which may or may not result in criminal fillings because it is illegal federally for federal employees. >Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is not illegal, nor is walking out of a job. Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is illegal, as is walking out of federal jobs (in a strike). You literally can't be any more wrong.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Whether existing legislating recognizes a certain type of strike as legal is very relevant to whether or not it is an illegal strike.
  - fishtacos 6y ago
    I would argue that from a moral stand point, every strike is legal.

fishtacos 6y ago

It absolutely is. The courts have their take on it, as expected, but the spirit of a strike remains consistent despite laws against it. A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee. Whether existing legislation recognizes certain types of strikes as legal or not is irrelevant. Civil disobedience has deep roots in American history. This is an analogue to that, given that their rights to strike have been struck. (pun intended)

ameister14 6y ago
Could you explain how a strike cannot, by definition, be illegal? Civil disobedience can be illegal.
- fishtacos 6y ago
  All civil disobedience is illegal, yet you seem to adjust for some of it vs. others. Extend that to all employment. Nothing illegal about not being forced to work. A contract is not a prison sentence, or I should hope so. I will grant you certain conditions apply to armed forces that wouldn't otherwise apply to civilian employment, as that does actively put other's lives at risk. This isn't a conversation about desertion of duty, merely protesting or quitting. Even then there are laws that protect conscientious objectors .
throwaway0x1 6y ago
>A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee. Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee.
- fishtacos 6y ago
  A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. It's an established form of protest which may or may not lead to firing. Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is not illegal, nor is walking out of a job. At least from both a moral standpoint.
  - fishtacos 6y ago
    *At least from a moral standpoint.
  - throwaway0x2 6y ago
    >A strike, by definition, cannot be illegal. Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal. >It's an established form of protest which may or may not lead to firing. Wrong. It's an established form of protest which may or may not result in criminal fillings because it is illegal federally for federal employees. >Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is not illegal, nor is walking out of a job. Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is illegal, as is walking out of federal jobs (in a strike). You literally can't be any more wrong.
JamesBarney 6y ago
Whether existing legislating recognizes a certain type of strike as legal is very relevant to whether or not it is an illegal strike.
- fishtacos 6y ago
  I would argue that from a moral stand point, every strike is legal.