3 ms·

This is typically the case in Europe, where (unsurprisingly) unions are more common. In the US and the UK, you see more militant unions, more wildcat strikes, m

This is typically the case in Europe, where (unsurprisingly) unions are more common. In the US and the UK, you see more militant unions, more wildcat strikes, more picketing, etc. which is why union membership went through the floor (I am in the UK, we also have unions taking positions on climate change, on Israel/Palestine, they own the party in opposition and last year the most well-funded union leader attempted to get his girlfriend a seat in the House of Lords...they are very weird). Unions develop in their own political, legal, and cultural context so, for some, strikes are very much a first resort.

_jal 5y ago
> strikes are very much a first resort I'm going to guess you don't know any union members. Strikes are very hard on the strikers. You're suddenly taking no income but still putting in a shift on the picket line. Not only is there the real risk of the whole thing being net-negative, but you could lose your job entirely. And a lot of time, you only strike because you've been squeezed financially for so long, you may not have much of a buffer for all that. You make it sound like unions strike for sport. I suspect a conversation with an actual striking union member might provide a different perspective.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  That guess is incorrect. And yes, as I explained but will repeat, strikes happen within a political/legal/cultural/economic context. In some contexts, that has increased the frequency of strikes. By your account, the proportion of strikes just relates to the financial position of the strikers...I don't know how it is possible to be aware of the history of trade unionism and come to that conclusion. For example, individuals do not choose to strike. They vote for strike action in a ballot or there is a decision taken by an executive of the union. Exactly how this occurs has had a huge role in determining the frequency of strikes (if you look at the labour history of the UK, the lack of democratic process in important unions was a major reason why they went militant, why strikes increased, and eventually why unions fell into decline). The specifics of your account of striking is mostly wrong too (for example, it is not always true that strikers are unpaid). Most people today do not understand how unions operate...this is related to the fact that they live in countries where the labour movement committed suicide, and they are left with militant unions that misrepresent how unions can actually work effectively (again, Europe is a perfect example of this, the militant behaviour of unions today is a function of their irrelevance in society, and that is 100% a function of the use of industrial action by militant unions).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

_jal 5y ago

> strikes are very much a first resort I'm going to guess you don't know any union members. Strikes are very hard on the strikers. You're suddenly taking no income but still putting in a shift on the picket line. Not only is there the real risk of the whole thing being net-negative, but you could lose your job entirely. And a lot of time, you only strike because you've been squeezed financially for so long, you may not have much of a buffer for all that. You make it sound like unions strike for sport. I suspect a conversation with an actual striking union member might provide a different perspective.

hogFeast 5y ago
That guess is incorrect. And yes, as I explained but will repeat, strikes happen within a political/legal/cultural/economic context. In some contexts, that has increased the frequency of strikes. By your account, the proportion of strikes just relates to the financial position of the strikers...I don't know how it is possible to be aware of the history of trade unionism and come to that conclusion. For example, individuals do not choose to strike. They vote for strike action in a ballot or there is a decision taken by an executive of the union. Exactly how this occurs has had a huge role in determining the frequency of strikes (if you look at the labour history of the UK, the lack of democratic process in important unions was a major reason why they went militant, why strikes increased, and eventually why unions fell into decline). The specifics of your account of striking is mostly wrong too (for example, it is not always true that strikers are unpaid). Most people today do not understand how unions operate...this is related to the fact that they live in countries where the labour movement committed suicide, and they are left with militant unions that misrepresent how unions can actually work effectively (again, Europe is a perfect example of this, the militant behaviour of unions today is a function of their irrelevance in society, and that is 100% a function of the use of industrial action by militant unions).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]