4 ms·

A general strike is illegal in the United States. The US government, under the control of wealthy capitalists, has ensured that capital's interests are protect

A general strike is illegal in the United States. The US government, under the control of wealthy capitalists, has ensured that capital's interests are protected in law to the detriment of the workers who actually create value. > Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Labor in the US is weak by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act

notch656a 4y ago
I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.
dpkirchner 4y ago
> A general strike is illegal in the United States. What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  There are a lot of potential consequences. A look at US labor history shows that mass arrests are possible (one of the first uses of aerial bombing was used to put down a miners' strike at Blair Mountain in the US. So, much worse than mass arrests are possible). But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people). But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance. Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
That seems like an obvious First Amendment violation given the economic activity = speech precedent from Citizen's United.

notch656a 4y ago

I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.

dpkirchner 4y ago

> A general strike is illegal in the United States. What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.

sillystuff 4y ago
There are a lot of potential consequences. A look at US labor history shows that mass arrests are possible (one of the first uses of aerial bombing was used to put down a miners' strike at Blair Mountain in the US. So, much worse than mass arrests are possible). But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people). But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance. Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

That seems like an obvious First Amendment violation given the economic activity = speech precedent from Citizen's United.