5 ms·
Doing so would prevent people from striking against unfair conditions, because they would lose the ability to feed themselves, and so would rather suffer bad wo
by askonomm 3y ago
Doing 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.
- 543354544 3y agohaving a family is also optional. Really, don't @ us, we are not to blame for your problems
- 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.