5 ms·

Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of work

Even then I’d say that courts being able to discipline workers for unionizing and blocking work against a huge company would be going against the intent of workers rights. This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. It’s saying that we’re not going to deliver mail for a company actively refusing to work within our labor market with our customs. This is entirely their right. A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> This is entirely their right I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use. > A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people This is counterproductive hyperbole.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  > This is counterproductive hyperbole. Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law." Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      > But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"? I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__. Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.
paulddraper 3y ago
> This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?
- aaomidi 3y ago
  > Just the bad ones I assume? I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice. Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> This is entirely their right I agree. Every system of law has its own rules and customs. Sympathetic strikes are a precedented Swedish custom. Freedom of association is the langauge we'd use. > A court that would rule otherwise is not a legitimate court in the eyes of the workers and people This is counterproductive hyperbole.

aaomidi 3y ago
> This is counterproductive hyperbole. Not really. The courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." A lot of dictatorships actually do use courts to make their rule seem more "in line with the law." Anyway I'm fighting against the notion of, just because court says so it's ok.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > courts ruling on something doesn't just immediately make that "ok." No. But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Courts rule on the law. Sometimes the law is bad. Many systems don't have judicial review. (I don't think district courts in Sweden do.) Normalising this view of legitimacy ironically undermines both the rule of law and the democratic principle of protecting minority rights.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    > But deciding a court is illegitimate because it rules in a way you don't like or, more likely, don't understand, is immature. Nazi Germany regularly operated with the court's blessing. You'd consider disagreeing and de-legitimizing the court in that state being "immature"? I feel like folks are missing that so much of modern day dictatorship and fascism __actively operate within the parameters of government__. Courts, law, etc do not make something legitimate.

paulddraper 3y ago

> This isn’t workers saying we’re not going to deliver mail to, let’s say, Muslims. What characteristics/groups are permissible to boycott? Just the bad ones I assume?

aaomidi 3y ago
> Just the bad ones I assume? I mean, this is an obvious question here. In the US we have a system of protected class. Generally cultural and religious identities alongside sexual and personal ones are protected. A system similar to that would suffice. Companies can not in any sense of the word be considered a protected class. And we can cross this bridge if we ever see unions boycotting a specific individual.