3 ms·

How can not choosing to do thing voluntarily be seen of as a strike, even if it is coordinated? I (personally) don't see that as a reasonable interpretation.

drekipus 4y ago
"Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage, caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances."
brabel 4y ago
I think words sometimes lose their meaning in some places. Clearly, OP doesn't even understand that "voluntarily" doing something means that you only do it if you want to... so refusing to do it is by definition within your rights... what they seem to be trying to do is re-defining what voluntary means... unfortunately, a very common tactic these days.
- fencepost 4y ago
  In this case it seems that 'voluntary' means 'we need some people but we're leaving it up to you which specific people take those shifts.' That doesn't seem unreasonable.
- sudhirj 4y ago
  Workers intentionally choosing to disrupt a volunteer-based shift in a coordinated way is in no way the same thing as deciding not to volunteer for something.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    It is a decision, you just don't approve of their reasoning.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  According to the report, the agreement says that overtime isn't voluntary if there are too few volunteers to do the work. Definitions of "voluntary" are beside the point. Also, the report says part of the employer's complaint is that there was no vote taken on the action. The implication is that had the action been official, i.e. called by the union following a vote, then the threatening letter would not have been sent. It looks to me like the employer's letter was inadvisable, and perhaps should have been reviewed by the company's PR team before it went out.
ysavir 4y ago
I think the problem is that some, or even many, would have volunteered if not for the circulated letter. By collectively influencing each others' choices, rather than letting people choose individually without consideration from the union, the court ruled that this is essentially a union strike, especially since it had a purpose of trying to get benefits from the employer. And that could have been fine, but if I understand the article correctly, the problem is that there wasn't a vote on this action within the union. If it would have been voted on and formally taken as a union action, they would have been acting legally. But without the formal vote, it is an illegal strike according to the region's labor laws.
- mrkstu 4y ago
  I think that is mostly correct, but the union is also prohibited from striking until such time as the contract expires, so in this instance it doesn't matter if its a 'wildcat' action or not, its prohibited under their current agreement.

drekipus 4y ago

"Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage, caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances."

brabel 4y ago

I think words sometimes lose their meaning in some places. Clearly, OP doesn't even understand that "voluntarily" doing something means that you only do it if you want to... so refusing to do it is by definition within your rights... what they seem to be trying to do is re-defining what voluntary means... unfortunately, a very common tactic these days.

fencepost 4y ago
In this case it seems that 'voluntary' means 'we need some people but we're leaving it up to you which specific people take those shifts.' That doesn't seem unreasonable.
sudhirj 4y ago
Workers intentionally choosing to disrupt a volunteer-based shift in a coordinated way is in no way the same thing as deciding not to volunteer for something.
- lozenge 4y ago
  It is a decision, you just don't approve of their reasoning.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 4y ago
According to the report, the agreement says that overtime isn't voluntary if there are too few volunteers to do the work. Definitions of "voluntary" are beside the point. Also, the report says part of the employer's complaint is that there was no vote taken on the action. The implication is that had the action been official, i.e. called by the union following a vote, then the threatening letter would not have been sent. It looks to me like the employer's letter was inadvisable, and perhaps should have been reviewed by the company's PR team before it went out.

ysavir 4y ago

I think the problem is that some, or even many, would have volunteered if not for the circulated letter. By collectively influencing each others' choices, rather than letting people choose individually without consideration from the union, the court ruled that this is essentially a union strike, especially since it had a purpose of trying to get benefits from the employer. And that could have been fine, but if I understand the article correctly, the problem is that there wasn't a vote on this action within the union. If it would have been voted on and formally taken as a union action, they would have been acting legally. But without the formal vote, it is an illegal strike according to the region's labor laws.

mrkstu 4y ago
I think that is mostly correct, but the union is also prohibited from striking until such time as the contract expires, so in this instance it doesn't matter if its a 'wildcat' action or not, its prohibited under their current agreement.