3 ms·
That's not suppressed, at least not in the same way things were suppressed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Ruling that the strike would be illegal
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
That's not suppressed, at least not in the same way things were suppressed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Ruling that the strike would be illegal under the Railway Labor Act" is a long way from "send in the US Army to break up the strike".
- cool_dude85 3y agoThey didn't rule that the strike would be illegal, the Democratic Congress imposed management's contract.
- wry_discontent 3y agoWhy would you expect them to suppress things in exactly the same way? Things are vastly different right now.
- petsfed 3y agoI think the fact that the strike was resolved via legislative action (which I suppose, somewhat circuitously imply threats of violence) and not via overt violence is pretty telling. While in general, strike tactics have moderated, its also true that companies' first step in breaking a strike is no longer physical violence against union organizers.
- yareal 3y agoThis is a distinction without a difference. The US government said, "you aren't allowed to strike, if you do there will be consequences." The strikers backed down because the violence they feared. The government has a reputation, and if they say "we're going to hurt you" they probably will.