4 ms·

Not sure why you think that, here's the first line from your source >Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935 Sounds to me

Not sure why you think that, here's the first line from your source >Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935 Sounds to me like the only time it becomes legal is if you were in a union and then leave while still employed at the same place

wootland 4y ago
From the article: > Nevertheless, US workers can formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests. At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved, as there is no longer a conflict between sections 7 and 9(a) of the NLRA.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  That is described by the last part of my comment, it is only legal under a very specific circumstance and not generally
  - wootland 4y ago
    That's not stated in the Wikipedia post or the National Labor Relations Act: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation...
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      It's literally what your reply to my first comment is stating What do you think "formally request to end their association with their labor union" means? >formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests >At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved Which is stated in wikipedia after: >Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935 >Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal and that employers may fire workers participating in them.
      - wootland 4y ago
        Your interpretation doesn't hold. All it's saying is that you have to not be affiliated with a union, then a wildcat strike is legal ("no illegality involved").
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        It isn't an "interpretation" The wikipedia page literally says that you must end your relationship with the union due to inadequate representation
        wootland 4y ago
        It says that because you can't be in a union and do a wild cat strike. Not in a union? You're free to. You're misreading it. I'd encourage you talk to a lawyer if you have any doubts.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        Because this is what an attorney told you or you're relying on your own interpretation of the plain English text? It's pretty clear, words mean things and I encourage you to look up the definition of words like "request" and "end" and "association" If there isn't a union then it wouldn't be considered a wildcat strike at all, therefore there must be a union at that workplace for it to be considered a wildcat strike and the person must be unassociated with that union due to inadequate representation for it to be a protected wildcat strike https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wildcat+Strike https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wildcat+Strik...
renewiltord 4y ago
A strike is a wildcat strike only if there is a union that the strike is not approved by. If there's no union at your workplace, it's not a wildcat strike. There's more to all of this, but it's pretty straightforward reasoning. At worst, the LLMs are able to explain this stuff correctly so you can just ask them.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  That is not at odds with my statement. It is only a legal wildcat strike if you request to be unassociated with the union first and if you don't request that while there is a union but you strike anyway, then it is an illegal wildcat strike

wootland 4y ago

From the article: > Nevertheless, US workers can formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests. At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved, as there is no longer a conflict between sections 7 and 9(a) of the NLRA.

kevviiinn 4y ago
That is described by the last part of my comment, it is only legal under a very specific circumstance and not generally
- wootland 4y ago
  That's not stated in the Wikipedia post or the National Labor Relations Act: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation...
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    It's literally what your reply to my first comment is stating What do you think "formally request to end their association with their labor union" means? >formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests >At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved Which is stated in wikipedia after: >Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935 >Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal and that employers may fire workers participating in them.
    - wootland 4y ago
      Your interpretation doesn't hold. All it's saying is that you have to not be affiliated with a union, then a wildcat strike is legal ("no illegality involved").
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        It isn't an "interpretation" The wikipedia page literally says that you must end your relationship with the union due to inadequate representation
        wootland 4y ago
        It says that because you can't be in a union and do a wild cat strike. Not in a union? You're free to. You're misreading it. I'd encourage you talk to a lawyer if you have any doubts.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        Because this is what an attorney told you or you're relying on your own interpretation of the plain English text? It's pretty clear, words mean things and I encourage you to look up the definition of words like "request" and "end" and "association" If there isn't a union then it wouldn't be considered a wildcat strike at all, therefore there must be a union at that workplace for it to be considered a wildcat strike and the person must be unassociated with that union due to inadequate representation for it to be a protected wildcat strike https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wildcat+Strike https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wildcat+Strik...

renewiltord 4y ago

A strike is a wildcat strike only if there is a union that the strike is not approved by. If there's no union at your workplace, it's not a wildcat strike. There's more to all of this, but it's pretty straightforward reasoning. At worst, the LLMs are able to explain this stuff correctly so you can just ask them.

kevviiinn 4y ago
That is not at odds with my statement. It is only a legal wildcat strike if you request to be unassociated with the union first and if you don't request that while there is a union but you strike anyway, then it is an illegal wildcat strike