I still really don’t understand what it means for a rail strike to be illegal. Okay, we’re not “striking” we’re “quitting” until you realize you fucking need us working and hire us back with better terms.
Unless they plan on straight up arresting rail workers and compelling them to run the trains at gunpoint punishing a strike doesn’t seem like it would help. All you’re doing is making it harder to have the workers you need when the strike does end.
That’s kinda the thing about a strike is it hard to prevent since ultimately it’s just “not working”
I'm not sure it's an option at all on a large scale. It's not something that the weekend warrior types can do (it's a skilled job), so presumably you'd need people from the army who drive their logistics trains to do it. But I don't know how many of those there are. Stopping arms shipments to Ukraine because the army train engineers are busy delivering treats would be kinda funny tho.
To be fair, teaching is a skilled job and I believe there are still National Guard troops with no education training who are teaching in public schools due to "teacher shortages*".
I still really don’t understand what it means for a rail strike to be illegal. Okay, we’re not “striking” we’re “quitting” until you realize you fucking need us working and hire us back with better terms.
There's a formal process of negotiation. And a "legal" strike is a part of that negotiation process. Without the trappings of legality, the agreement between workers and management isn't legally binding. Without a formal union contract, individual striking workers are exposed to retaliation by the employer. Without a recognized settlement, certain union groups aren't guaranteed the same benefits as others so everything is settled on an individual contractual level rather than as a provision that applies to all current and future union members.
Of course, in a country that's been moving aggressively towards "Right To Work" state-by-state, the veneer of legality is falling away. The Teacher Strikes from back in '18-'19 were functionally wildcat, because there was no formal union and no official union body with which to negotiate. And the strikes weren't resolved at a national or even a state level. Teachers came back once the local districts began to cave on various provisions independent of any contractual agreement, with the expectation that a reversal would set off another round of strikes.
Generally speaking, unions benefit from a uniform collective approach because it grants rights to a ahemclass of people rather than some subset that reach a settlement with some random collection of pliant managers. It establishes the union as a base of cooperative support, rather than a mere organ of agitation.
That’s kinda the thing about a strike is it hard to prevent since ultimately it’s just “not working”
Unions don't really benefit from "Quiet Quitting". Leadership needs to be seen as such in order to establish terms and win concessions in a manner that encourages more people to join and participate in the union. No, Congress can't just wave their hands and make people go back to work. But they can make any subsequent deal swiss-cheesed with holes that allow management to legally reneg afterwards without consequence. Similarly, they can impose fines and penalties on union leadership and union organizations, such that state debt collectors and local sheriffs are legally empowered to harass them.
I still really don’t understand what it means for a rail strike to be illegal. Okay, we’re not “striking” we’re “quitting” until you realize you fucking need us working and hire us back with better terms.
Unless they plan on straight up arresting rail workers and compelling them to run the trains at gunpoint punishing a strike doesn’t seem like it would help. All you’re doing is making it harder to have the workers you need when the strike does end.
That’s kinda the thing about a strike is it hard to prevent since ultimately it’s just “not working”
I suspect the real solution to a mass quittting would be national guard units being activated to run the trains (poorly)
If that was a reasonable option why not just do that now
I don't think it's a reasonable option, I just think it's the one that would be chosen in a strike or mass quit
I'm not sure it's an option at all on a large scale. It's not something that the weekend warrior types can do (it's a skilled job), so presumably you'd need people from the army who drive their logistics trains to do it. But I don't know how many of those there are. Stopping arms shipments to Ukraine because the army train engineers are busy delivering treats would be kinda funny tho.
To be fair, teaching is a skilled job and I believe there are still National Guard troops with no education training who are teaching in public schools due to "teacher shortages*".
*below living wages
I guess America could get its own Lac-Mégantic rail disaster.
with the way rail workers are treated now it's honestly surprising that there aren't more major rail disasters here
it's because we use rails less.
There's a formal process of negotiation. And a "legal" strike is a part of that negotiation process. Without the trappings of legality, the agreement between workers and management isn't legally binding. Without a formal union contract, individual striking workers are exposed to retaliation by the employer. Without a recognized settlement, certain union groups aren't guaranteed the same benefits as others so everything is settled on an individual contractual level rather than as a provision that applies to all current and future union members.
Of course, in a country that's been moving aggressively towards "Right To Work" state-by-state, the veneer of legality is falling away. The Teacher Strikes from back in '18-'19 were functionally wildcat, because there was no formal union and no official union body with which to negotiate. And the strikes weren't resolved at a national or even a state level. Teachers came back once the local districts began to cave on various provisions independent of any contractual agreement, with the expectation that a reversal would set off another round of strikes.
Generally speaking, unions benefit from a uniform collective approach because it grants rights to a ahem class of people rather than some subset that reach a settlement with some random collection of pliant managers. It establishes the union as a base of cooperative support, rather than a mere organ of agitation.
Unions don't really benefit from "Quiet Quitting". Leadership needs to be seen as such in order to establish terms and win concessions in a manner that encourages more people to join and participate in the union. No, Congress can't just wave their hands and make people go back to work. But they can make any subsequent deal swiss-cheesed with holes that allow management to legally reneg afterwards without consequence. Similarly, they can impose fines and penalties on union leadership and union organizations, such that state debt collectors and local sheriffs are legally empowered to harass them.
:yea:
That last sentence :agony-shivering:
I don't really see how Congress fits into this. It's like including the town council in divorce proceedings.