3 ms·
No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't comma
by CameronNemo 3y ago
No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't command a competitive salary.
- gruez 3y ago>In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Please read my previous comment again. My claim isn't that there won't be damages due to work stoppages, just that there's a difference between damages caused as a side effect of work stoppages (eg. lost production), and work stoppages deliberately timed/engineered to cause max damage. A sibling comment[1] listed out other examples. Surely you see the difference between the scenarios listed and simply not showing up to work one day? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614
- supernova87a 3y agoThe union waited until the concrete trucks were poured/loaded/on their way to call the strike action, in order to exact intentional and maximal damage to the company. That doesn't seem to me as normal business losses and striking to increase one's bargaining position. That borders on extortion. I think the difference is "obvious".
- CameronNemo 3y agoWell, enjoy your reality.
- supernova87a 3y agoSure. I guess my reality is the one that's compatible with our laws.
- CameronNemo 3y agoYour laws, not ours.
- supernova87a 3y agoI think we can tell who's the crazy one in this thread.
- CameronNemo 3y agoCrazy is ableist language.