4 ms·

> I adore the idea that someone is so pro-union the only outcome they support is a perma-strike that results with no one having any jobs. Beautiful. Well done.

by JadeNB 1y ago

> I adore the idea that someone is so pro-union the only outcome they support is a perma-strike that results with no one having any jobs. Beautiful. Well done. "Ended a strike" almost certainly does not mean, in this context, "made reasonable accommodations with the workers." There is a big difference between saying "the owner ended the strike" (probably a bad thing for workers' rights) versus "the workers ended the strike" (possibly a good thing for workers' rights), and it is clear that your parent comment was opposed to the former, not the latter.

forrestthewoods 1y ago
It is not possible for “the owners to end the strike”. Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. If an owner “ends the strike” it solely because they reached a mutual agreement with workers.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > It is not possible for “the owners to end the strike”. Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. If an owner “ends the strike” it solely because they reached a mutual agreement with workers. Perhaps not legally, but strikebreaking has a violently varied history in America, and that's just the country I'm most familiar with. Private detectives and off-duty police have been used to carry out the wishes of owners against unions for so long that one of the most famous times was a strike for an 8 hour workday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
- n4r9 1y ago
  This comment suggests otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44703275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44703275
  - forrestthewoods 1y ago
    Nah. The union members chose to return to work. They have been deeply unhappy with the deal - or lack thereof - but it was their choice. American employers can not force employees to work. Striking union members can either accept mutually agreed terms or not.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Management has two basic ways to respond to a strike. They can negotiate with the workers and work cooperatively to build an environment that benefits everyone. Or they can act adversarially to outlast or outsmart the strikers and coerce the strike to end on terms that maintains or increases their profit margin. It sounds a lot like the latter is what happened here, and this is what was being pointed out in the original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702730
- JadeNB 1y ago
  > Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. Lacking the authority to do something is different from lacking the ability to do it, and I think that the labor environment in the US is such that owners very much have the ability to do it. Of course we're talking about the '70s here, which were a more labor-friendly time, but still far from the heyday of modern labor power (which I believe was in the '40s).

by JadeNB 1y ago

forrestthewoods 1y ago

It is not possible for “the owners to end the strike”. Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. If an owner “ends the strike” it solely because they reached a mutual agreement with workers.

aspenmayer 1y ago
> It is not possible for “the owners to end the strike”. Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. If an owner “ends the strike” it solely because they reached a mutual agreement with workers. Perhaps not legally, but strikebreaking has a violently varied history in America, and that's just the country I'm most familiar with. Private detectives and off-duty police have been used to carry out the wishes of owners against unions for so long that one of the most famous times was a strike for an 8 hour workday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
n4r9 1y ago
This comment suggests otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44703275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44703275
- forrestthewoods 1y ago
  Nah. The union members chose to return to work. They have been deeply unhappy with the deal - or lack thereof - but it was their choice. American employers can not force employees to work. Striking union members can either accept mutually agreed terms or not.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Management has two basic ways to respond to a strike. They can negotiate with the workers and work cooperatively to build an environment that benefits everyone. Or they can act adversarially to outlast or outsmart the strikers and coerce the strike to end on terms that maintains or increases their profit margin. It sounds a lot like the latter is what happened here, and this is what was being pointed out in the original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44702730
JadeNB 1y ago
> Owners do not possess the authority with which to force workers back to work. Lacking the authority to do something is different from lacking the ability to do it, and I think that the labor environment in the US is such that owners very much have the ability to do it. Of course we're talking about the '70s here, which were a more labor-friendly time, but still far from the heyday of modern labor power (which I believe was in the '40s).