Hacker News Reader

Comment by wootland | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if there can be more ephemeral union like entities that help the labor market. I'd love to see a community that helps people organize strikes and coordinate between multiple companies. Strikes are one of the strongest tools a union has, but you don't need a union to organize them. It feels like we have the technology to create ad-hoc unions and support general labor advocacy and direct action without the need for a formal union (not saying they are necessarily bad).

View on HN

Every few years someone thinks that they have a new plan to revolutionize labor organizing, usually involving some sort of app that will somehow replace the work necessary to organize a union, and they are always wrong. Building a union that's strike-ready requires a lot of on the ground work that you simply cannot automate.

Would you say that things like Blind or Levels.fyi have had an impact on labor organization? I would argue that they have.

I certainly think they're emblematic of changes in attitudes, but I think the direction of causation is not so clear.

There are exceptions, but strikes are usually the result of an organized group of workers exhausting other bargaining options. Strikes are the result of very intentional, long periods of organizing. They (usually) don't happen all of a sudden. Barring something egregious, strikes are hard to pull off and requires a lot of buy in.

The most successful way to accomplish this level of organizing is forming a union.

strikes, or the credible threat of a strike, is the only power a union has. well except for the dues paid but those usually just go to a handful of pockets.

Unions are needed to provide the social structure to suppress worker dissent against a strike and to label all willing to work on terms offered as "scabs".

"Union solidarity" is an important cover story for a host of behaviors that would otherwise be simply shocking.

> I'd love to see a community that helps people organize strikes and coordinate between multiple companies.

Unfortunately solidarity strikes were so successful for workers for much of the 20th century, they were criminalised in parts of the English-speaking world from the 80s onward.

wildcat strikes, which you're describing, are illegal in the united states.

Wildcat strikes aren't illegal if you're not in a union:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_strike_action#Legality

It's not a wildcat strike if you're not in a union. It's just refusing to show up to work.

But if it's an organized effort in order to get management to do something, it is a strike

Not sure why you think that, here's the first line from your source

>Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935

Sounds to me like the only time it becomes legal is if you were in a union and then leave while still employed at the same place

From the article:

> Nevertheless, US workers can formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests. At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved, as there is no longer a conflict between sections 7 and 9(a) of the NLRA.

That is described by the last part of my comment, it is only legal under a very specific circumstance and not generally

That's not stated in the Wikipedia post or the National Labor Relations Act: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/nation...

It's literally what your reply to my first comment is stating

What do you think "formally request to end their association with their labor union" means?

>formally request that the National Labor Relations Board end their association with their labor union if they feel that the union is not adequately representing their interests

>At this point, any strike action taken by the workers may be termed a wildcat strike, but there is no illegality involved

Which is stated in wikipedia after:

>Wildcat strikes have been considered illegal in the United States since 1935

>Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal courts have held that wildcat strikes are illegal and that employers may fire workers participating in them.

Your interpretation doesn't hold. All it's saying is that you have to not be affiliated with a union, then a wildcat strike is legal ("no illegality involved").

It isn't an "interpretation"

The wikipedia page literally says that you must end your relationship with the union due to inadequate representation

It says that because you can't be in a union and do a wild cat strike. Not in a union? You're free to. You're misreading it. I'd encourage you talk to a lawyer if you have any doubts.

Because this is what an attorney told you or you're relying on your own interpretation of the plain English text? It's pretty clear, words mean things and I encourage you to look up the definition of words like "request" and "end" and "association"

If there isn't a union then it wouldn't be considered a wildcat strike at all, therefore there must be a union at that workplace for it to be considered a wildcat strike and the person must be unassociated with that union due to inadequate representation for it to be a protected wildcat strike

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wildcat+Strik...

A strike is a wildcat strike only if there is a union that the strike is not approved by. If there's no union at your workplace, it's not a wildcat strike. There's more to all of this, but it's pretty straightforward reasoning.

At worst, the LLMs are able to explain this stuff correctly so you can just ask them.

That is not at odds with my statement. It is only a legal wildcat strike if you request to be unassociated with the union first and if you don't request that while there is a union but you strike anyway, then it is an illegal wildcat strike

And even if they were illegal, there are so many creative ways to stage action that do not technically constitute a strike.

Only because the govt promised to protect unions. They’re not really keeping their side of the promise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com