7 ms·

"When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, b

"When I bring this up, people sometimes respond by saying that these kinds of strikes are illegal in the US. This is a true and worthwhile bit of information, but insofar as it is meant to imply that the different legal environment is what accounts for the labor radicalism, this obviously has things backwards. The laws aren’t driving the labor radicalism, but rather the labor radicalism is driving the laws." So true. Every kind of strikes was illegal before it became legal.

bloqs 5y ago
Land of the free and the home of the brave
tyingq 5y ago
There are ways around US labor laws too. Unions often get away with stealthy "work slowdowns" and "everyone call in sick" actions. Typically without any repercussions for the union or employees because it's illegal, but hard to prove.
- toss1 5y ago
  Yup, it's often a "Work To Rule" action [1], where everyone works exactly by the book. All shortcuts are eliminated, every break is taken to the exact second (instead of working through the breaks to get stuff done), etc. Everything slows down, and that is that. And the point is that it is strictly legal - everything is being done exactly by the book. Even so, employers sometimes sue unions over "malicious compliance". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
  - doikor 5y ago
    Another way that works in many fields is just everyone refusing any and all overtime. If everyone does that most companies (and police, fire departments, public hospitals, etc) can't cope. The company can't really force anyone to take extra overtime. The only thing they can do is fire you (well not in the Nordics but in the US I think yes?) but that will only make their problem of not having enough workers around worse.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - grasshopperpurp 5y ago
    If you have a union job, and you're skipping or shortening breaks, you're doing it wrong.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      If they are doing these things because it makes your job more enjoyable, it's exactly as intended.
      - grasshopperpurp 5y ago
        Could you clarify? I don't follow.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  To use a recent example, police have done exactly that. They're not even trying to pretend it isn't exactly what it is.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Every kind of strikes was illegal before it became legal. I don't think withdrawing your labour was illegal before someone legalised it - the whole workforce was not enslaved.
- masklinn 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars The reason why US unions are so antagonistic is that US corporations are antagonistic and destructive, any hint of collective action brings out the guns, historically literally. This very essay talks about their approach to countries with constructive unions / labour, so does the behaviour of Amazon in Germany these days. US unions have just been living in that environment with little support (quite the opposite) for 150 years, so anything they can get they will everything else be damned. They have no incentive to be cooperative and agreeable because corps will try to destroy them regardless.
- jadbox 5y ago
  I've only taken a recent interest in history (specifically labor), but if you look at the grand scale of either direct physical enslavement or designed econeomical indirect enslavement (surfs to their rulers), you find so much of history dating back to the Egyptian empire of kingdoms that relied their econemy in significant part with labor enforcement. You could try to argue about the right of withdrawing label just in context to American history, but I think we'd still wind up with a compelling case that so much of history had periods of significant unjust-by-most-standards labor compulsion.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Strikes were prosecuted as illegal conspiracies before the labor rights movement. The law was generally strongly pro-employer, hence the labor rights movement.
jollybean 5y ago
"Every kind of strikes was illegal before it became legal. " This is not true. Striking was not 'illegal'. If you decided to not show up for work your company could let you go. 'Striking' with protections etc is a 'positive right', effectively a set of powers established by government, imbued on workers. Think about it: what 'right' would someone normally have to 'not show up for work' and expect that the company couldn't let them go? What 'right' would someone normally have to block a company from freely interacting with other groups of workers? 'Striking' is a power given to Unions by government that enables them to have some kind of leverage over their employers, and stop employers form participating in what would in any normal circumstance just be normal course of business. Most of the things unions fought for during the era of labour uprising were enshrined into labour law and other regulatory concerns i.e. 'worker safety' whereas actual wages make up only one part of the equation.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >'Striking' with protections etc is a 'positive right', effectively a set of powers established by government, imbued on workers. Think about it: what 'right' would someone normally have to 'not show up for work' and expect that the company couldn't let them go? The same right someone would have to fire somebody. Rights are not god given. Nor is the ability of the employer to fire workers some physical law. It's the result of a balance of power - same as the right to strike without getting fired.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    This is not true, and the rhetoric on this thread is descending into byzantine logic. If you fail to do your duties, you can (or should) be fired, that's of course legal and reasonable by any measure. Any arbitrary means that the government provides for beyond that is a 'positive right' (i.e. you can't be fired if the union goes on strike, even if you fail to do your duties). My direct family member belonged to a large well known union that controlled all aspects of hiring, firing, promotion and job duties. Promotion and layoffs were based entirely on 'time in'.
    - 5y ago
smnrchrds 5y ago
So many people (even here on HN) think that unions have lost their way and should be abolished because instead of focusing on their duties, they sometimes get involved in politics, through supporting one candidate over another, donating to a campaign, or hiring lobbyists. This example shows how necessary political action is if a union wants to bring real improvement for its members.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  > they sometimes get involved in politics, through supporting one candidate over another, donating to a campaign, or hiring lobbyists. Union political lobbying is persistent in every election, using ‘sometimes get involved’ is not an accurate description for how frequent it is.
  - handrous 5y ago
    I'll consider worrying about unions lobbying as soon as companies and their industry groups no longer lobby. Absent that, it's downright necessary.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Who would want to be a member of a union that didn't engage in political lobbying? That would indicate a very weak union.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      Who would want to be forced to pay union dues to a union who's opposed to their politics?
      - standardUser 5y ago
        Someone who wants to earn more money than a comparable non-union job.
        5y ago
spiffytech 5y ago
This reminds me of something patio11 is fond of saying about Japan: "A necessary and complete way to have nice things is to have the will to have nice things".

bloqs 5y ago

Land of the free and the home of the brave

tyingq 5y ago

There are ways around US labor laws too. Unions often get away with stealthy "work slowdowns" and "everyone call in sick" actions. Typically without any repercussions for the union or employees because it's illegal, but hard to prove.

toss1 5y ago
Yup, it's often a "Work To Rule" action [1], where everyone works exactly by the book. All shortcuts are eliminated, every break is taken to the exact second (instead of working through the breaks to get stuff done), etc. Everything slows down, and that is that. And the point is that it is strictly legal - everything is being done exactly by the book. Even so, employers sometimes sue unions over "malicious compliance". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
- doikor 5y ago
  Another way that works in many fields is just everyone refusing any and all overtime. If everyone does that most companies (and police, fire departments, public hospitals, etc) can't cope. The company can't really force anyone to take extra overtime. The only thing they can do is fire you (well not in the Nordics but in the US I think yes?) but that will only make their problem of not having enough workers around worse.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- grasshopperpurp 5y ago
  If you have a union job, and you're skipping or shortening breaks, you're doing it wrong.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    If they are doing these things because it makes your job more enjoyable, it's exactly as intended.
    - grasshopperpurp 5y ago
      Could you clarify? I don't follow.
rootusrootus 5y ago
To use a recent example, police have done exactly that. They're not even trying to pretend it isn't exactly what it is.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Every kind of strikes was illegal before it became legal. I don't think withdrawing your labour was illegal before someone legalised it - the whole workforce was not enslaved.

masklinn 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars The reason why US unions are so antagonistic is that US corporations are antagonistic and destructive, any hint of collective action brings out the guns, historically literally. This very essay talks about their approach to countries with constructive unions / labour, so does the behaviour of Amazon in Germany these days. US unions have just been living in that environment with little support (quite the opposite) for 150 years, so anything they can get they will everything else be damned. They have no incentive to be cooperative and agreeable because corps will try to destroy them regardless.
jadbox 5y ago
I've only taken a recent interest in history (specifically labor), but if you look at the grand scale of either direct physical enslavement or designed econeomical indirect enslavement (surfs to their rulers), you find so much of history dating back to the Egyptian empire of kingdoms that relied their econemy in significant part with labor enforcement. You could try to argue about the right of withdrawing label just in context to American history, but I think we'd still wind up with a compelling case that so much of history had periods of significant unjust-by-most-standards labor compulsion.
standardUser 5y ago
Strikes were prosecuted as illegal conspiracies before the labor rights movement. The law was generally strongly pro-employer, hence the labor rights movement.

jollybean 5y ago

"Every kind of strikes was illegal before it became legal. " This is not true. Striking was not 'illegal'. If you decided to not show up for work your company could let you go. 'Striking' with protections etc is a 'positive right', effectively a set of powers established by government, imbued on workers. Think about it: what 'right' would someone normally have to 'not show up for work' and expect that the company couldn't let them go? What 'right' would someone normally have to block a company from freely interacting with other groups of workers? 'Striking' is a power given to Unions by government that enables them to have some kind of leverage over their employers, and stop employers form participating in what would in any normal circumstance just be normal course of business. Most of the things unions fought for during the era of labour uprising were enshrined into labour law and other regulatory concerns i.e. 'worker safety' whereas actual wages make up only one part of the equation.

coldtea 5y ago
>'Striking' with protections etc is a 'positive right', effectively a set of powers established by government, imbued on workers. Think about it: what 'right' would someone normally have to 'not show up for work' and expect that the company couldn't let them go? The same right someone would have to fire somebody. Rights are not god given. Nor is the ability of the employer to fire workers some physical law. It's the result of a balance of power - same as the right to strike without getting fired.
- jollybean 5y ago
  This is not true, and the rhetoric on this thread is descending into byzantine logic. If you fail to do your duties, you can (or should) be fired, that's of course legal and reasonable by any measure. Any arbitrary means that the government provides for beyond that is a 'positive right' (i.e. you can't be fired if the union goes on strike, even if you fail to do your duties). My direct family member belonged to a large well known union that controlled all aspects of hiring, firing, promotion and job duties. Promotion and layoffs were based entirely on 'time in'.
  - 5y ago

smnrchrds 5y ago

So many people (even here on HN) think that unions have lost their way and should be abolished because instead of focusing on their duties, they sometimes get involved in politics, through supporting one candidate over another, donating to a campaign, or hiring lobbyists. This example shows how necessary political action is if a union wants to bring real improvement for its members.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
> they sometimes get involved in politics, through supporting one candidate over another, donating to a campaign, or hiring lobbyists. Union political lobbying is persistent in every election, using ‘sometimes get involved’ is not an accurate description for how frequent it is.
- handrous 5y ago
  I'll consider worrying about unions lobbying as soon as companies and their industry groups no longer lobby. Absent that, it's downright necessary.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Who would want to be a member of a union that didn't engage in political lobbying? That would indicate a very weak union.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Who would want to be forced to pay union dues to a union who's opposed to their politics?
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Someone who wants to earn more money than a comparable non-union job.
      - 5y ago

spiffytech 5y ago

This reminds me of something patio11 is fond of saying about Japan: "A necessary and complete way to have nice things is to have the will to have nice things".