7 ms·
Striking should be legal, but firing employees for striking should also be legal.
by appleskeptic 3y ago
Striking should be legal, but firing employees for striking should also be legal.
- askonomm 3y agoDoing so would prevent people from striking against unfair conditions, because they would lose the ability to feed themselves, and so would rather suffer bad working conditions. If you care at all about human beings, you should not be able to fire people simply because they voice their concerns about unfair working conditions, etc.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> so would rather suffer bad working conditions. If you care at all about human beings Or social stability. We came to a consensus on striking workers because before that it was violent. Reprisal against those speaking a common view on despised conditions is how you make martyrs.
- lambda_garden 3y agoThis is the part where a basic social safety net comes in.
- lawn 3y agoA social safety net helps you if you lose your job, but it does nothing for you when you're on the job. In Sweden we have a very good social safety net, but just that isn't enough.
- lambda_garden 3y agoThis is why benefits shouldn't be means-tested.
- 543354544 3y agoShowing up at work is not mandatory. Only do it if you want.
- Deprecate9151 3y agoStrikes are to thank for that.
- 543354544 3y agoI don't know what you actually meant with this nonsense
- soco 3y agoHe means that between striking and burning your boss at the stake one should prefer the strikes.
- wharvle 3y ago“Free” workers under capitalism used to often not be free to leave the job. As in they’d be locked in, or some big dudes would encourage them to stay, or they’d be in some remote area and paid largely in scrip, and practically unable to quit, or a despotic local “big man” major employer would ensure they’d have to leave town if they upset him, which could include things like “wasn’t back in the bunk house before curfew”. The labor movement is largely the reason capitalists don’t/can’t still do those things.
- 6565657 3y ago[dead]
- Deprecate9151 3y agoI encourage you to learn more about the history of labor relations, especially since the 1700s.
- sassbadger 3y agoWait, is that an offer to pay for mine and my families' housing and basic needs? Please let us know, cause most people would absolutely stop working their miserable jobs if they were provided for.
- burnerburnson 3y ago[flagged]
- dangus 3y agoStriking workers aren’t paid in the first place. Allowing collective bargainers to be fired creates an unbalanced system where employers always have more leverage than workers. Think about it this way: how do I fire the corporations that I’m forced to patronize? Can you survive modern life without buying a single product from Unilever/Nestle/P&G/J&J? How do you make a video call to your family without Google/Apple/Microsoft/Meta being involved? How do I make a phone call without AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile? Can I buy a microwave that isn’t manufactured by Midea, LG, Panasonic, or Samsung? What about an LCD/OLED panel that isn’t made by LG or Samsung? How do I fly anywhere without Boeing or Airbus? How do I buy a phone/computer without patronizing Foxconn, Qualcomm, TSMC, or Samsung? Corporations get a captive audience of consumers but they’re allowed to fire people for negotiating the terms of their employment? That doesn’t seem balanced to me.
- Y-bar 3y ago> Striking workers aren’t paid in the first place. Mostly correct. But unions save the union dues and pay it back to striking workers as compensation for the lost income from work. For example union members at Tesla get 100% wage compensated: > Members at Tesla receive conflict compensation from day one when the conflict breaks out. The compensation is 100 percent of the income you would have received if you had worked. This also applies for you who apply for membership during the conflict and the compensation is paid from day one of your membership. https://www.ifmetall.se/aktuellt/tesla/strejk--ratten-att-varna-trygga-villkor/strike--the-right-to-protect-safe-conditions/ https://www.ifmetall.se/aktuellt/tesla/strejk--ratten-att-va...
- mikeyouse 3y agoThanks to good planning by the union, the workers are being compensated - but the point remains that the striking workers aren't costing the employer any money, which was one commenter's claim for why it's unfair to Tesla.
- johngladtj 3y agoOn the contrary, it would simply put both companies and workers on the same standard. If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same Yes? Was this disputed?
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 3y ago> If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same. Why is that?
- turquoisevar 3y ago> On the contrary, it would simply put both companies and workers on the same standard. If by “same standard” you mean equal footing, then I don’t see how you’d square that circle. By definition an employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical, so is landlord-tenant, corporations-consumer, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc. In all those relationships one has more leverage than the other. Which is why, in most developed nations, there are guardrails in an effort to equalize that relationship.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jakderrida 3y agoIn theory, that doesn't sound so bad. In practice, what you're advocating are violent strikes that never end.
- razakel 3y agoA cynic would say that Americans are deliberately kept in the dark as to what people actually had to do in order to win their labor rights, and quite how awful conditions were even for skilled workers. They'll bring back company towns if you let them.
- jakderrida 3y ago>They'll bring back company towns if you let them. In fairness, I'm not actually against company towns, in theory. I'm sure company towns existed in Scandinavia the same way they did here. However, following WWII, when they adopted their current economic model, that same town's residents inherited rights from the larger collective bargaining agreement, allowing them to bargain in good faith with the company that basically owns that town. You see how their model of basically having cascading collective bargaining agreements that start from the top and empower everyone under it make me less opposed to company towns? However, it works better in countries where most people aren't brainwashed into thinking they'll all be billionaires one day and should look out for the interests of billionaires first.
- appleskeptic 3y agoViolent strikers should go to jail.
- jakderrida 3y agoIt's pathetic how your position on violent strikebreakers is so lenient that you don't even feel them worth mentioning. Sort of a testament to how effective American brainwashing is. It's equally pathetic that you think the role of the state is to expend unlimited funds to keep the enemies of private enterprises incarcerated, even when it would cost us all far more than adopting an enlightened policy regarding collective bargaining.
- ajkjk 3y agoStriking should be ubiquitous; employees should be in unions by default with no voting required.
- throwawa14223 3y agoWhy would you abridge my freedom of association by forcing me to be part of a group I have no desire to join?
- wharvle 3y agoYou’re exactly as forced as people are forced to have a job.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwawa14223 3y agoI believe you are arguing I could always choose not to work. I wish to work for an employer and the employer wishes to work with me. In this hypothetical there is required membership with an unrelated party I do not wish to associate with. If I wanted to go to a coffee shop and that shop wanted to serve me coffee but the mafia is standing outside saying I have to pay them before I can go in, they are in fact forcing me to pay or turn away.
- wharvle 3y agoThe party’s not unrelated.
- throwawa14223 3y agoYes, in both cases.
- wharvle 3y ago
- avgcorrection 3y agoShould woulda. Maybe enough people would strike if your kinda law would go into effect so that the law couldn’t be maintained. Daily reminder that Norway has NHO, a national union for employers/enterprises. (I don’t like it but it is what is.)
- appleskeptic 3y agoI'm not saying you should have to fire them. But you should be able to.
- avgcorrection 3y agoThat’s probably legal in many places yeah.
- jmyeet 3y agoEvery work condition you take for grant--8 hour days, weekends, vacations, paid leave, to name a few--is the fruit of the labor movement, labor organization and strikes. Consider the Homestead strike [1] where companies hired private mercenaries (ie the Pinkertons) to commit violence to break the strike. People died. Consider US auto makers [2]: > Tesla workers earn on average about $55 an hour in wages and benefits, compared to $66 to $71 an hour at Detroit’s Big Three, according to CNN research. If the Detroit automakers come to agreement with the UAW, it will widen the gap between those unionized and non-unionized wages. Unions benefit non-union members too [3]: > Each 1 percentage point increase in private-sector union membership rates translates to about a 0.3 percent increase in nonunion wages. The disdain for unions (by Americans in particular) while being completely oblivious to the benefits they enjoy because of unions has to be one of the most successful propaganda wins of the last century. Siding with the world's richest man over your own interests makes absolutely no sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike [2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/26/tesla-continues-to-be-adamantly-non-union/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/26/tesla-continues-to-be-a... [3]: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions-and-the-us-economy https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions...
- johngladtj 3y agoI find it funny how in every example I have ever seen of "companies oppressing poor workers on strike" every single time the workers started it by doing illegal and wrong things, and attempting to force the company to give in by force. Every. Single. Time. If someone can give me one example where the poor oppressed strikers were 100% in the right and did not actually start with the violence or credible threat of violence before being set upon by the state/company I would really appreciate it, because so far after going through dozens of such events not once have I found one
- hooverd 3y agoAh, so strikers not being 100% perfect victims justifies it. Got it.
- hh3k0 3y agoThis comes to mind: https://twitter.com/HoldenShearer/status/998913016925220865 https://twitter.com/HoldenShearer/status/998913016925220865
- the-smug-one 3y agoThat will lead to extrajudicial action from the workers.
- typon 3y agoAccumulating obscene amounts of capital should be legal, but using the guillotine on those people should also be legal
- CamperBob2 3y agoDifficulty: from the perspective of several billion people, your neck looks pretty tasty.
- beaeglebeach 3y agoThis should be allowed from time to time so the prols can see what a spectacularly bad idea this is and taste the fruit of their impoverished ideologies.
- Hikikomori 3y agoWhy stop there? Should to back to the good old days of Pinkertons and military having a small scale war with strikers. And corporations knowingly letting workers work in conditions that will kill them to earns a few dollars more. Only someone ignorant of history can spout nonsense like this.
- appleskeptic 3y agoNo, we shouldn't. But anyone committing assaults on either side should be prosecuted. Much easier to do these days than back then.
- petschge 3y agoAlways remember that historically striking is the friendly alternative to dragging the factory owner and their family from their home, killing them, setting their house on fire and running the factory yourself.
- bee_rider 3y agoCompanies and unions have contracts. It isn’t a matter of what’s legal or not, but what they were able to negotiate for. Organizations should have wide latitude in terms of what sorts of contracts they bind themselves to, and that includes additional requirements for firing union members. It’s all part of the negotiation.
- appleskeptic 3y agoThis is false. Labor laws passed in the 1900s in most Western countries give you a right to strike without the risk of getting fired. It doesn't have to be bargained for. There's lots of caveats, but that's the general rule.