4 ms·
The "winners of the game" get a nice bailout from US taxpayers when they lose, so it's not particularly impressive. Striking is what got you a 5 day work week a
by drekk 4y ago
The "winners of the game" get a nice bailout from US taxpayers when they lose, so it's not particularly impressive. Striking is what got you a 5 day work week and an end to child labor. You may not appreciate the blood that was spilt for your cushy white collar desk job, but from there to tell people that collective bargaining is a waste and something only the poors do? Egregious.
- roenxi 4y agoIf only these large organised groups of citizens had some way to influence the political process? This is kind of the theme I'm getting at today. If they're organising and then spending all their efforts fighting their employer while the winning strategy is control of the legislature then... one might observe they've really screwed up their strategy? If there is one thing poor people have, it is lots of votes. The reason they don't get much value for them is they keep employing silly strategies (like striking). This is literally why these strategies get so much airplay despite it being obvious they don't get things done, they're divide-and-conqueror distractions because otherwise the effort might end up going in to meaningful politics or something. The organising part of the story is good, but after organising the next step needs to be going for useful outcomes that make people better off. Striking just does damage to everyone.