2 ms·

Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a dange

Some government and municipal employees have stricter rules when it comes to strikes. Others like doctors and police cannot strike in a way that creates a danger in society. Dont know if that would apply to judges. But strikes are against a company or the state when there is a labour dispute, not against individuals or for political reasons. So his hypothetical does not apply.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that. The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute. The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1. My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met. I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service
- Hikikomori 3y ago
  >Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions. In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

again, I never said anything about individuals or politics. You are the one interjecting that. The situation is pretty simple. We are talking about a sympathy strike targeted at a company engaged in a labor dispute. The questions are 1) if government employees can (or should) be allowed to selectively deny government services to a company as a sympathy strike. 2) If not, should employees of a 100% government owned company, which provides a government service, be treated as government employees for the purpose of Question 1. My position is that the government has a duty to ensure equal accesses to government services and that it's obligations to companies are met. I think it would undermine equal treatment under the law if the government allowed its agents to selectively refuse government services. For example, if judges refused to hear cases from a specific company as a means of protest. I think there is a colorable argument that Postnord is providing a goverment service, and it is the governments obligation to ensure that Tesla has equal accesses to that service

Hikikomori 3y ago
>Do you think Judges should be able to boycott hearing cases they dont like? This sounded like a judge would have some personal thing against one party in a case, which would not be a labour dispute called out by the unions. In the 90s with Toys R Us, Seko (postal union) did the same thing they are doing now, even finance unions joined the strike so they were unable to use banking services. So we even have precedence of this action.