3 ms·

How convenient to make strikes illegal. That disarms the union of one of its most potent weapons in ensuring its members get their due.

• JackFr 4y ago
  There is a fundamental difference between private and public sector unions. "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt (the guy who created the NLRB and was responsible for modern labor law in the US.) https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolution-federation-federal-employees-against-strikes-federal-service https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolut...
  • metabagel 4y ago
    As the head of the government, he had a great interest in not having unions in government service.
    • ak217 4y ago
      If a private employee union strikes and makes unreasonable demands, the employer eventually goes out of business. If a public employee union does the same, the government can't go out of business. So what that means is, as long as the union is granted monopoly on its kind of labor supply, they are holding the taxpayers and their infrastructure hostage. Public employee unions should not be allowed to strike without giving up their monopoly on labor. And we would do well to not entitle private employee unions to mandatory membership and rigid seniority rules (I know from personal experience that these rules make them incredibly corrupt).
• CWuestefeld 4y ago
  In the private sector, I'd agree. But in the world of government services, where there's a legally-enforced monopoly, it's a very different story.