3 ms·
I didn't downvote, but I do see an issue that could be the cause: the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the
by kwk1 3y ago
I didn't downvote, but I do see an issue that could be the cause: the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced, ignoring the messy reality of power and who wields it. If you're fired for striking or other protected activity, you can pursue legal recourse; hopefully you can still meet needs for food, shelter, medicine, etc. This may as well be on another planet from "cannot".
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>the statement "you can't be fired for going on strike" misses the essential difference of the law as written versus the law as enforced strikes are pretty effective, that's why the devil in the details isn't trying to go around a strike. It's to either rule a strike a illegal, or try and prevent a union from forming to begin with. I see that statement as pretty much true... once you can establish the union. And I see it as a proper response to "well you don't need a union to strike". Of course no one can make you work if you stop going to work, and you can't be arrested for refusing to work unless you are military (AWOL) or very specific, specialized professions. But that misses the point of a union.