3 ms·

"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

"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'.
  - goto11 5y ago
    An employment implies a contract between employer and worker. The right to strike may or may not be allowed in the contract depending on the negotiating power of the employee, just like the conditions under which the employee can be fired is agreed upon. What you consider "reasonable by any measure" is just the contract where the worker have no rights and the employer have all the rights.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >If you fail to do your duties, you can (or should) be fired, that's of course legal and reasonable by any measure. It's legal because it was put into the legal code. It's not, again, some physical law. For example, even if you "failed to do your duties", you still couldn't just be fired in many places, because there are extra protections and steps (and costs to the employeer). >Any arbitrary means that the government provides for beyond that is a 'positive right' Only if you have internalized that an automatic firing is the default.
- splintercell 5y ago
  > Rights are not god given. We revolted and started a country over this, made it into a primary declaration in our independence.
  - kybernetikos 5y ago
    Perhaps more relevant than the source of the rights is who will enforce them and how will they be enforced. Unfortunately, even if God is the source of these rights, They do not directly enforce them. It's governments that need to do that. If it were not so, it wouldn't have been necessary to write it into the declaration of independence in the first place.

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'.
- goto11 5y ago
  An employment implies a contract between employer and worker. The right to strike may or may not be allowed in the contract depending on the negotiating power of the employee, just like the conditions under which the employee can be fired is agreed upon. What you consider "reasonable by any measure" is just the contract where the worker have no rights and the employer have all the rights.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >If you fail to do your duties, you can (or should) be fired, that's of course legal and reasonable by any measure. It's legal because it was put into the legal code. It's not, again, some physical law. For example, even if you "failed to do your duties", you still couldn't just be fired in many places, because there are extra protections and steps (and costs to the employeer). >Any arbitrary means that the government provides for beyond that is a 'positive right' Only if you have internalized that an automatic firing is the default.
splintercell 5y ago
> Rights are not god given. We revolted and started a country over this, made it into a primary declaration in our independence.
- kybernetikos 5y ago
  Perhaps more relevant than the source of the rights is who will enforce them and how will they be enforced. Unfortunately, even if God is the source of these rights, They do not directly enforce them. It's governments that need to do that. If it were not so, it wouldn't have been necessary to write it into the declaration of independence in the first place.