5 ms·

He's saying the miners wouldn't accept it either, but any organized attempt to change it was broken up by a private army.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
That seems like it wouldn't work if you had a government capable of anything so basic as enforcing the preexisting laws against acts of violence.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  Well.. to be fair both sides used violence and governments generally (with very few exceptions) sided with the business owners.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  They were plenty capable. They didn’t want to.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    If the government is enforcing the law, they can't do that because it has been illegal for a thousand years. If the government isn't enforcing the law, what good is a new law for them to not enforce?
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      They were enforcing some laws and doing so selectively. Striking workers were usually on the wrong side of the law though because they were using coercion and force to make every worker to participate in strikes (they could hardly work any other way without laws restricting “right to work”)
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > they could hardly work any other way without laws restricting “right to work” Well sure they could. The workers who agree with the strike go on strike and if that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met. If it isn't, you've failed to convince your fellow workers that the light is worth the candle and if you don't want to work under the terms that they do, you can go work for someone else. This is mainly a problem when there is no other someone else to work for, but now you're back to anti-trust rather than labor laws.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met. Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers. When you resist the governor will just use that as a justification to send in the national guard to “maintain law and order”. At least that’s how it often worked in the good old days.. > Well sure they could. In an imaginary world maybe. In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much. > you can go work for someone else. Under the same conditions. Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers. Now we're back to "everyone agrees that violence should be illegal." > In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much. But then what difference does it make if you go on strike with 75% of the other workers or 100%? Either way the boss just waits two weeks until you all need to buy food. Which still assumes that the employer is a monopoly. Otherwise you go on strike by taking some gig work in the meantime, which maybe sucks, maybe even sucks more than your current job, but it lets you make rent for as long as it takes for the employer to feel the need to meet your terms. > Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce. There is no law requiring employers to pay anyone more than minimum wage and yet >98% of people make more than minimum wage. What explains this other than that employers have to compete with each other for labor?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Historically, it feels like laws compelling the government to act for the rights of workers has a mixed record. There's a stronger record of laws preventing a government from acting against workers and ones permitting workers to take matters into their own hands.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

That seems like it wouldn't work if you had a government capable of anything so basic as enforcing the preexisting laws against acts of violence.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
Well.. to be fair both sides used violence and governments generally (with very few exceptions) sided with the business owners.
ceejayoz 3y ago
They were plenty capable. They didn’t want to.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  If the government is enforcing the law, they can't do that because it has been illegal for a thousand years. If the government isn't enforcing the law, what good is a new law for them to not enforce?
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    They were enforcing some laws and doing so selectively. Striking workers were usually on the wrong side of the law though because they were using coercion and force to make every worker to participate in strikes (they could hardly work any other way without laws restricting “right to work”)
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > they could hardly work any other way without laws restricting “right to work” Well sure they could. The workers who agree with the strike go on strike and if that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met. If it isn't, you've failed to convince your fellow workers that the light is worth the candle and if you don't want to work under the terms that they do, you can go work for someone else. This is mainly a problem when there is no other someone else to work for, but now you're back to anti-trust rather than labor laws.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met. Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers. When you resist the governor will just use that as a justification to send in the national guard to “maintain law and order”. At least that’s how it often worked in the good old days.. > Well sure they could. In an imaginary world maybe. In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much. > you can go work for someone else. Under the same conditions. Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers. Now we're back to "everyone agrees that violence should be illegal." > In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much. But then what difference does it make if you go on strike with 75% of the other workers or 100%? Either way the boss just waits two weeks until you all need to buy food. Which still assumes that the employer is a monopoly. Otherwise you go on strike by taking some gig work in the meantime, which maybe sucks, maybe even sucks more than your current job, but it lets you make rent for as long as it takes for the employer to feel the need to meet your terms. > Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce. There is no law requiring employers to pay anyone more than minimum wage and yet >98% of people make more than minimum wage. What explains this other than that employers have to compete with each other for labor?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Historically, it feels like laws compelling the government to act for the rights of workers has a mixed record. There's a stronger record of laws preventing a government from acting against workers and ones permitting workers to take matters into their own hands.