12 ms·

Why are workers striking for their "friends" in the form of sympathy strikes illegal in the land of the free?

by doikor 5y ago

kevingadd 5y ago
Because if laborers were given power, it would threaten the power of the state, the power of businesses, and the power of the rich On the bright side we don't really have mercs or the US military showing up to murder strikers anymore, so that's nice
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Famously, air traffic controllers striked in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was president. He fired all of them -- almost 12,000 people. Certain groups are just not legally allowed to strike in the US. Air traffic controllers are critical to the economy and safety of the country.
- TomK32 5y ago
  It took the FAA ten years to recover from this and regain previous staffing levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Didn’t know that. Another interesting point is that all of the fired air traffic controllers were banned for life from working that job again. That helps explain why it took 10 years to recover: all the new employees were probably newly trained.
    - hbosch 5y ago
      And, I believe, FAA training is famously hard and unforgiving. I've heard if you fail one of the tests, you are out forever and cannot reapply (for air traffic controllers).
- rocgf 5y ago
  There are exceptions like this everywhere in Europe. Can't speak for Denmark specifically, but anecdotally most countries in Europe have similar rules - certain workers cannot legally strike the same way McDonald's workers can.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
    One recent example is in Poland - you can't strike if not working causes risk to health and life of people, so when EMTs went to strike they just quit their jobs en masse.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    See the recent nurses strike in Denmark. I think they are legal forbidden from striking... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-intervenes-end-nurses-strike-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-inter...
    - liversage 5y ago
      The Danish nurses' strike was not illegal. The Danish labor market is governed by special rules. On one side you have the workers organized in unions. On the other side the employers that are also organized. They negotiate the work conditions typically every year. In this case it was the nurses' union vs. the public healthcare system. The nurses voted no to the proposed agreement and eventually went on strike. Because nurses are critical to healthcare it was very controlled which nurses were included in the strike. The negotiations continued but it was impossible to reach an agreement and the number of nurses on strike increased over time. Eventually the government decided to intervene and made the initial proposed agreement into law. This is part of the organization of the Danish labor market that if a conflict continues for too long there can be an intervention from the government. Some nurses being angry about the outcome continued smaller strikes. These strikes are illegal within the framework of the labor laws. There's a special court ("Arbejdsretten" or "The labor court") that can decide that both the nurses as well as their union have to pay fines for illegal strikes. This is not a criminal court. The main reason that the nurses went on strike is because they want greater pay. Historically nurses and many other public jobs were governed by special rules where they were not allowed to strike but could also not easily be fired ("tjenestemand"). This system was inflexible and was modernized in 1969. The nurses ended up with lower pay compared to similar jobs in terms of education (schoolteacher, policeman) most likely because being a nurse is typically a woman's job. This pay gap still exists today where the nurses now are allowed to strike within the framework of the labor laws in an attempt to increase their pay.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  Well, you also need to have reasonable demands if you want other people to support you. >In February 1981, PATCO and the FAA began new contract negotiations. Citing safety concerns, PATCO called for a reduced 32-hour work week, a $10,000 pay increase for all air-traffic controllers and a better benefits package for retirement.[9] Negotiations quickly stalled. Then, in June, the FAA offered a new three-year contract with $105 million of up front conversions in raises to be paid in 11.4% increases over the next three years, a raise more than twice what was being given to other federal employees, “The average federal controller (at a GS_13 level, a common grade controller) earned $36,613, which was 18% less than private sector counterpart";[10] with the raise demanded, the average federal pay would have exceeded the private sector pay by 8%, along with better benefits and shorter working hours. However, because the offer did not include a shorter work week or earlier retirement, PATCO rejected the offer.[11]
- pipnonsense 5y ago
  If 12,000 of them were fired (all at once?), so they are not that critical to the economy and the safety of the country to the point that can't strike, right?
  - beerandt 5y ago
    If they're already not showing up, firing them just means the paychecks stop. Once that card (striking) has been played, you lose any leverage afforded by avoiding interruptions of "economy and safety".
    - doikor 5y ago
      That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build up huge war chests so that they can pay their striking members. For example the largest property investor in Finland is a company owned by the unions. So they got wealth in the billions to fight if need be.
      - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?
        smolder 5y ago
        > Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
        biaachmonkie 5y ago
        That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.
jollybean 5y ago
Turn the question around: Why would you think you have the arbitrary power to walk out on your job, and not have them let you go? You 100% have the right to 'not show up at the auto shop to protest wages at the coffee shop' ... but it's a little odd to think that they can't just let you go and find another worker who will actually show up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- doikor 5y ago
  That is not the same thing turned around. Support/sympathy strike means the the workers from other companies stop providing services for to the target of the strike. Most common forms of this is something like the ground crews joining the cabin crew/pilot strikes (or the other way around) or truck drivers joining the port workers strike (or again the other way around) edit: Or wait is just normal striking illegal too? So it is literally illegal for a group of people to get together and go "fuck it this sucks" and not show up to work the next day?
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Per wikipedia[1] The Taft-Hartley Act banned "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns." Most if not all of these actions are legal in Denmark, here's some quick definitions: - A Jurisdictional Strike is a strike to dispute job assignments; e.g. that all brickwork be done by members of a brickworking union - A wildcat strike is a strike without union organization (so to answer your question, yes it is literally illegal for a group of people to get together and go "fuck it this sucks" and not show up to work the next day. - Solidarity strikes would be a strike when you don't work for the employer. Not to be confused with secondary boycotts (below) - Political strikes are strikes intended to influence government policy - Secondary boycotts are what TFA mentions; e.g. not loading/unloading cargo to/from a specific company. - Secondary picketing would be picketing companies that do business with the company (e.g. picketing stores that sell products from the business, or companies that sell goods or services to the business) - A closed shop is a deal that requires the employer to only hire union members[2] - Donating funds to federal campaigns is perhaps obvious? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act 2: Note that it is still legal for a collective bargaining agreement to require those hired to pay dues, but this act also allowed states to ban even that. 27/50 states currently ban even this, though going by population it's less than half the population that live in such a state.

Why are workers striking for their "friends" in the form of sympathy strikes illegal in the land of the free?

by doikor 5y ago

Why are workers striking for their "friends" in the form of sympathy strikes illegal in the land of the free?

Because if laborers were given power, it would threaten the power of the state, the power of businesses, and the power of the rich On the bright side we don't really have mercs or the US military showing up to murder strikers anymore, so that's nice

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Famously, air traffic controllers striked in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was president. He fired all of them -- almost 12,000 people. Certain groups are just not legally allowed to strike in the US. Air traffic controllers are critical to the economy and safety of the country.

TomK32 5y ago
It took the FAA ten years to recover from this and regain previous staffing levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr...
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Didn’t know that. Another interesting point is that all of the fired air traffic controllers were banned for life from working that job again. That helps explain why it took 10 years to recover: all the new employees were probably newly trained.
  - hbosch 5y ago
    And, I believe, FAA training is famously hard and unforgiving. I've heard if you fail one of the tests, you are out forever and cannot reapply (for air traffic controllers).
rocgf 5y ago
There are exceptions like this everywhere in Europe. Can't speak for Denmark specifically, but anecdotally most countries in Europe have similar rules - certain workers cannot legally strike the same way McDonald's workers can.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  One recent example is in Poland - you can't strike if not working causes risk to health and life of people, so when EMTs went to strike they just quit their jobs en masse.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  See the recent nurses strike in Denmark. I think they are legal forbidden from striking... https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-intervenes-end-nurses-strike-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/danish-government-inter...
  - liversage 5y ago
    The Danish nurses' strike was not illegal. The Danish labor market is governed by special rules. On one side you have the workers organized in unions. On the other side the employers that are also organized. They negotiate the work conditions typically every year. In this case it was the nurses' union vs. the public healthcare system. The nurses voted no to the proposed agreement and eventually went on strike. Because nurses are critical to healthcare it was very controlled which nurses were included in the strike. The negotiations continued but it was impossible to reach an agreement and the number of nurses on strike increased over time. Eventually the government decided to intervene and made the initial proposed agreement into law. This is part of the organization of the Danish labor market that if a conflict continues for too long there can be an intervention from the government. Some nurses being angry about the outcome continued smaller strikes. These strikes are illegal within the framework of the labor laws. There's a special court ("Arbejdsretten" or "The labor court") that can decide that both the nurses as well as their union have to pay fines for illegal strikes. This is not a criminal court. The main reason that the nurses went on strike is because they want greater pay. Historically nurses and many other public jobs were governed by special rules where they were not allowed to strike but could also not easily be fired ("tjenestemand"). This system was inflexible and was modernized in 1969. The nurses ended up with lower pay compared to similar jobs in terms of education (schoolteacher, policeman) most likely because being a nurse is typically a woman's job. This pay gap still exists today where the nurses now are allowed to strike within the framework of the labor laws in an attempt to increase their pay.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
Well, you also need to have reasonable demands if you want other people to support you. >In February 1981, PATCO and the FAA began new contract negotiations. Citing safety concerns, PATCO called for a reduced 32-hour work week, a $10,000 pay increase for all air-traffic controllers and a better benefits package for retirement.[9] Negotiations quickly stalled. Then, in June, the FAA offered a new three-year contract with $105 million of up front conversions in raises to be paid in 11.4% increases over the next three years, a raise more than twice what was being given to other federal employees, “The average federal controller (at a GS_13 level, a common grade controller) earned $36,613, which was 18% less than private sector counterpart";[10] with the raise demanded, the average federal pay would have exceeded the private sector pay by 8%, along with better benefits and shorter working hours. However, because the offer did not include a shorter work week or earlier retirement, PATCO rejected the offer.[11]
pipnonsense 5y ago
If 12,000 of them were fired (all at once?), so they are not that critical to the economy and the safety of the country to the point that can't strike, right?
- beerandt 5y ago
  If they're already not showing up, firing them just means the paychecks stop. Once that card (striking) has been played, you lose any leverage afforded by avoiding interruptions of "economy and safety".
  - doikor 5y ago
    That makes no sense as a reason for firing someone. If you are not showing up for work (striking) you are not getting paid anyway. This is why the unions build up huge war chests so that they can pay their striking members. For example the largest property investor in Finland is a company owned by the unions. So they got wealth in the billions to fight if need be.
    - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
      It makes sense to me. Paying striking members is a losing battle once those members are fired: you’ll be paying them indefinitely in this case because there is only one employer for air traffic controller jobs in the USA, the federal government. Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. These people were knowingly and purposefully breaking federal law. What kind of example does it set to continue negotiations with them after that?
      - smolder 5y ago
        > Reagan did not negotiate with terrorists, either. The Iran-Contra affair seems like a pretty clear case of negotiating with terrorists.
      - biaachmonkie 5y ago
        That's an obviously unjust law. Removing workers right to strike removes a major point of leverage they have in negotiating for better working conditions and compensation.

jollybean 5y ago

Turn the question around: Why would you think you have the arbitrary power to walk out on your job, and not have them let you go? You 100% have the right to 'not show up at the auto shop to protest wages at the coffee shop' ... but it's a little odd to think that they can't just let you go and find another worker who will actually show up.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
doikor 5y ago
That is not the same thing turned around. Support/sympathy strike means the the workers from other companies stop providing services for to the target of the strike. Most common forms of this is something like the ground crews joining the cabin crew/pilot strikes (or the other way around) or truck drivers joining the port workers strike (or again the other way around) edit: Or wait is just normal striking illegal too? So it is literally illegal for a group of people to get together and go "fuck it this sucks" and not show up to work the next day?
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Per wikipedia[1] The Taft-Hartley Act banned "jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns." Most if not all of these actions are legal in Denmark, here's some quick definitions: - A Jurisdictional Strike is a strike to dispute job assignments; e.g. that all brickwork be done by members of a brickworking union - A wildcat strike is a strike without union organization (so to answer your question, yes it is literally illegal for a group of people to get together and go "fuck it this sucks" and not show up to work the next day. - Solidarity strikes would be a strike when you don't work for the employer. Not to be confused with secondary boycotts (below) - Political strikes are strikes intended to influence government policy - Secondary boycotts are what TFA mentions; e.g. not loading/unloading cargo to/from a specific company. - Secondary picketing would be picketing companies that do business with the company (e.g. picketing stores that sell products from the business, or companies that sell goods or services to the business) - A closed shop is a deal that requires the employer to only hire union members[2] - Donating funds to federal campaigns is perhaps obvious? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act 2: Note that it is still legal for a collective bargaining agreement to require those hired to pay dues, but this act also allowed states to ban even that. 27/50 states currently ban even this, though going by population it's less than half the population that live in such a state.