5 ms·
There's no need to justify how you do business with the NYT, whether it's playing a crossword game or accepting a job. But either one is referred to as crossing
by paperplatter 2y ago
There's no need to justify how you do business with the NYT, whether it's playing a crossword game or accepting a job. But either one is referred to as crossing the picket line.
- simonw 2y agoSurely playing a crossword game is only "crossing the picket line" if the workers on strike have asked you not to play that crossword / called for a more general boycott?
- tptacek 2y agoI think there's a deeper and more important subtlety here: there's a sort of moral obligation not to break a strike, but except in some specific circumstances, there really isn't an obligation to support a boycott, any more than there's an obligation to put a pro-labor bumper sticker on your car. Breaking a streak and ignoring a boycott are not equally weighted. (My kid brother is a labor person, so really I'm just venting some stuff here to keep it from coming up at Thanksgiving).
- mandmandam 2y ago> "a labor person" ... Are we supposed to know what that means? The way you're using it, it sounds like a pejorative... Which puts something of a spin on your particular pedantry here. > there really isn't an obligation to support a boycott I think the Irish - who invented the term - would disagree with you on that point. Not every boycott is worth supporting, sure. But if a boycott is worth supporting (say, divesting from genocide supporters) then yes there's a bit of an obligation there.
- paperplatter 2y agoProbably means someone who thinks there's a moral obligation to follow a union-requested boycott.
- tptacek 2y agoHe's in a union and pays attention to this stuff. That's all it meant.
- tptacek 2y agoNo, it isn't. You can see why people online would want it to be! But boycotts and strikes are different things.