25 ms·

Historically, law enforcement, courts and at time even military force have been used to put down labour action when it goes outside the box the NRLA drew. So I

Historically, law enforcement, courts and at time even military force have been used to put down labour action when it goes outside the box the NRLA drew. So I have no doubt they would throw the book at this kind of action if they can get away with it. Even regular picketing sometimes gets sanctioned by the police. Just this October John Deere picketers were sanctioned for blocking a gate. [1] [1] https://nptelegraph.com/business/deere-wins-injunction-against-davenport-picketers-deere-official-says-it-was-needed-to-provide-safe/article_97dd6ff2-4031-57fd-a606-8bd3253b91d8.html https://nptelegraph.com/business/deere-wins-injunction-again...

gruez 5y ago
>Historically, law enforcement, courts and at time even military force have been used to put down labour action when it goes outside the box the NRLA drew. >Even regular picketing sometimes gets sanctioned by the police. Just this October John Deere picketers were sanctioned for blocking a gate. [1] Did those actions get put down because it was labor action, or was it because those actions were not acceptable? ie. if I said [unpopular thing] online, and a bunch of protesters showed up to my house and blocked my driveway, preventing me from going to work, would it be reasonable for the police to disperse those protesters? would it be reasonable for me to get an injunction against those protesters to prevent them from doing it again?
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  All "labor actions" have only become "acceptable" through sacrifices of people fighting for it. Its a hard thing to get companies to agree to make less profit, as making profit is how they justify their existence, and profit tends to fall, so they are incentived to fight even the smallest demands from workers. "Acceptability" is a dynamic thing, decided by those who write laws. Not sure how to respond to your example because its a different situation? Do you think workers are just angry in the same way the mob outside of your house is? Or do you maybe think they are just trying to survive in this world?
  - gruez 5y ago
    > "Acceptability" is a dynamic thing, decided by those who write laws. To me, this almost sounds like "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, ie. what uber does, and runs counter to principle of rule of law. >Do you think workers are just angry in the same way the mob outside of your house is? so culture war protests = not fine, economic protests = fine?
    - scollet 5y ago
      What culture war?
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      To the first point, I think I agree, and in general, I personally would like workers to run "against the rule of law" more than they do now, where it is in their interest. I think it's plain to see that the rule of law is generally not in their interest, so I think they should do what they can, but I get that is probably an unpopular opinion here. To the second point, I don't think we need to decide on the fineness of either, in order to understand their qualitative difference.
    - popcube 5y ago
      I trust this is about size of subject. usually, protests are fight to some things bigger than one person.

gruez 5y ago

>Historically, law enforcement, courts and at time even military force have been used to put down labour action when it goes outside the box the NRLA drew. >Even regular picketing sometimes gets sanctioned by the police. Just this October John Deere picketers were sanctioned for blocking a gate. [1] Did those actions get put down because it was labor action, or was it because those actions were not acceptable? ie. if I said [unpopular thing] online, and a bunch of protesters showed up to my house and blocked my driveway, preventing me from going to work, would it be reasonable for the police to disperse those protesters? would it be reasonable for me to get an injunction against those protesters to prevent them from doing it again?

beepbooptheory 5y ago
All "labor actions" have only become "acceptable" through sacrifices of people fighting for it. Its a hard thing to get companies to agree to make less profit, as making profit is how they justify their existence, and profit tends to fall, so they are incentived to fight even the smallest demands from workers. "Acceptability" is a dynamic thing, decided by those who write laws. Not sure how to respond to your example because its a different situation? Do you think workers are just angry in the same way the mob outside of your house is? Or do you maybe think they are just trying to survive in this world?
- gruez 5y ago
  > "Acceptability" is a dynamic thing, decided by those who write laws. To me, this almost sounds like "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, ie. what uber does, and runs counter to principle of rule of law. >Do you think workers are just angry in the same way the mob outside of your house is? so culture war protests = not fine, economic protests = fine?
  - scollet 5y ago
    What culture war?
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    To the first point, I think I agree, and in general, I personally would like workers to run "against the rule of law" more than they do now, where it is in their interest. I think it's plain to see that the rule of law is generally not in their interest, so I think they should do what they can, but I get that is probably an unpopular opinion here. To the second point, I don't think we need to decide on the fineness of either, in order to understand their qualitative difference.
  - popcube 5y ago
    I trust this is about size of subject. usually, protests are fight to some things bigger than one person.