2 ms·
The fact that employers can't permanently replace striking workers puts the power in the Union's hands. Perhaps it's not extortion (since no laws are broken), b
by coin 13y ago
The fact that employers can't permanently replace striking workers puts the power in the Union's hands. Perhaps it's not extortion (since no laws are broken), but I would call it coercion.
Think about it from the employers' views. Employees says they're not happy with work, they don't show-up for work (unexcused absence). Employer can't fire them, and have to employ them should they return. So they hire some temporary workers, but can't keep them long term. The ones willing to work (temps) get the boot, and those that complained that their job is so bad (union workers) get to return anytime.
- jack-r-abbit 13y agoTrue, it is not the legal definition of extortion but the term extortion is "often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service"[1]. Clearly no crime has been committed here since they have a right to strike. I always think of coercion as slightly different but I guess it is the more technically correct word. It is also hard to even hire temps. They must cross the (sometimes aggressive) picket line, get called names (like scab), etc. Then there is the chance that the would-be temps are also in a union and therefore unable/unwilling to take the temp job. There was that one time that all the striking air traffic controllers got canned and permanently replaced[2]. But that was federal and Pres. Reagan got in on it. So that is not likely to be an option with BART. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12292.html