5 ms·
You don’t see anything wrong with public workers selectively punishing _one_ entity of their arbitrary choosing? Unchecked power is bad. Doesn’t matter if it’s
by elteto 3y ago
You don’t see anything wrong with public workers selectively punishing _one_ entity of their arbitrary choosing?
Unchecked power is bad. Doesn’t matter if it’s a government, a company or a union.
- Apocryphon 3y agoFrom your previous comment, you’re stating you are okay if the union declined to deliver everyone’s mail, which sounds like you’re fine with unchecked power that expresses itself without discrimination.
- elteto 3y agoCorrect. I’m not contesting the power to strike, I’m contesting the power to selectively target entities in such strikes. I don’t know if you thought there was a contradiction there, but I don’t see it.
- Apocryphon 3y agoIt doesn’t make sense to consider indiscriminate withholding of services through a strike not “unchecked power,” while selecting specific targets (which is far less disruptive to the market as a whole) as such. It’s also not an arbitrary choice. It’s a business that’s clearly in dispute with another union, that this union has decided to intervene on behalf of. It’s not like they’re striking against a company that was just minding its own business. Perhaps there can be labor relations boards and anti-discrimination regulation and such to prevent abuse of selective striking, but this is obviously a situation where everyone is a player and knows what game they’re playing.
- actionfromafar 3y agoThere’s nothing arbitrary about it. A worker can’t just declare a strike, that’s illegal. The company the postal company works for, also agreed to these terms.
- martin8412 3y agoThey're not public workers anymore after the liberalisation in the early 2000s. They didn't have the right to strike before that. Because it's a private company, they can strike. Who owns the shares is irrelevant in that context.