> illegal strike
I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic with your comment.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic with your comment.
I've always wondered what their ultimate collective bargaining power is if the single thing that grants them their leverage (to strike) is off the table from day 1. Shes never been able to answer.
Its not shocking that they rarely even settle for a fraction of what is asked and are just "thankful" when the government and politicians are so kind to budget them raises.
Best part....Due to the policies put in place during the 08 crash, salaries and raises were severely restricted. The government last year decided to "make up for it" by changing the base salaries for NEW teachers. So now a brand new teacher just out of college makes about as much (within a couple thousand) as much as my wife, who has a masters and has been teaching for about a decade.
Thats the issue with people that are passionate about something. It happens in IT as well. Many will work for peanuts because they like it and "experience". And my companies have been put off that I describe myself as a mercenary. I work for money and have absolutely no emotional ties to team, company or organization.
To be fair, unions don't exist solely as threats to employers. The ability to bargain collectively still results in better/fairer outcomes in most situations. Most of the time, employers want to compensate their employees in good faith. Most of the time, employees want to work for a team who get rewarded more or less fairly and not compete in a cutthroat arena where everyone has to bargain for themselves.
But yes: non-striking unions are absolutely not going to have the kind of corrective power in the face of genuine imbalance that real organized labor does.
While they can't strike, they can do the absolute bare minimum, which is what happens in a lot of professions (police, fire) where they can't legally strike. I'm not saying it's as effective as an actual strike, obviously, but with how much extra time teacher give beyond normal working hours, cutting it down to just working during business hours makes a school noticeably worse.
These sorts of unions happen in health, nursing in particular. And then the members end up overworked, underpaid and exploited.
My profession has a strident and aggressive union which I have not always agreed with, but they have improved pay and conditions (and have organised strikes).
But if an air traffic controller strike is announced, say, 24 hours beforehand, it can't be reasonably argued to be a public safety hazard.
Airplanes stop flying my wife no longer gets her medicine, she now dead.
Put it on the one party to give into anything the other wants, because they're said to be important.
Does it work the other way in your mind too? If we all agreed that air traffic or say, Amazon, were a critical resource and has to run efficiently and for the country's benefit, not individuals, that means that they get to put whatever conditions on labor they like?
This is the worst kind of approach to governing ever, if it can even be called that.
That being said, yes I agree we should be grateful for what we have and me an my wife regularly marvel that if she'd been born just 40 years earlier she would've been dead by the time she was 9.
Unfortunately, this works against those who work directly for those government agencies. At the end of the day, bargaining power comes from holding value hostage; and we react differently to holding on-time flight arrivals hostage, versus holding public safety hostage. It's a wicked problem for anyone who works in service of the latter.
It's war, where all is fair.
> An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he— > (3)participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7311
I'm guessing no since the firing wasn't challenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Service_Labor-Manageme...
This is not necessarily a bad thing. A good arbitration setup can be less combative and feel fairer than a setup where the threat of strike is the motivating factor.
A wildcat strike is what it is called when workers strike when their contract says they can't.
Whether existing legislation recognizes certain types of strikes as legal or not is irrelevant. Civil disobedience has deep roots in American history. This is an analogue to that, given that their rights to strike have been struck. (pun intended)
Civil disobedience can be illegal.
Extend that to all employment. Nothing illegal about not being forced to work. A contract is not a prison sentence, or I should hope so.
I will grant you certain conditions apply to armed forces that wouldn't otherwise apply to civilian employment, as that does actively put other's lives at risk. This isn't a conversation about desertion of duty, merely protesting or quitting. Even then there are laws that protect conscientious objectors .
Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal. That includes armed forces and every federal employee.
Wrong. A strike, by definition, as actually defined in federal law, can indeed be illegal.
>It's an established form of protest which may or may not lead to firing.
Wrong. It's an established form of protest which may or may not result in criminal fillings because it is illegal federally for federal employees.
>Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is not illegal, nor is walking out of a job.
Despite the results of the strike, the protest itself is illegal, as is walking out of federal jobs (in a strike).
You literally can't be any more wrong.
Then again, your profile picture is a soyboy face, and you're constantly spewing braindead leftist dribble, so, no one should be surprised by your glaring ignorance and naivety.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Please consider that you could have elevated the conversation by actually addressing the idea of an illegal strike (what differentiates a legal one from an illegal one, for example).
Most people (presumably you as well) have undergone at least one experience where they were forced to sign paperwork that they would not normally agree to, except under those specific circumstances (kid/family/rent/gadget etc.) Signing a piece of paper under such duress does not sign one's rights away exclusively.