Should a mail worker be able to decide who gets their mail and who don't?
For example as a mail worker should I be able to opt out from delivering mail to politicians whose political statements I find deplorable?
For example as a mail worker should I be able to opt out from delivering mail to politicians whose political statements I find deplorable?
I mean, call it whatever you want, but it is a selective strike and a government agency shouldn’t have the right to do that. You either don’t deliver _any_ mail, or you deliver it all.
Btw I can totally empathize with the reason of the autoworkers strike, yet not agree with this.
However, it appears the striking mail workers are being paid, even though they are not delivering mail to Tesla.
That in turn gives them a lot of power, because they can keep this strike going for as long as they like with no cost to themselves.
What does that mean?
It defines the concept pretty well, which is somewhat valuable, but has few citations, which is unfortunate.
Unchecked power is bad. Doesn’t matter if it’s a government, a company or a union.
I don’t know if you thought there was a contradiction there, but I don’t see it.
It’s also not an arbitrary choice. It’s a business that’s clearly in dispute with another union, that this union has decided to intervene on behalf of. It’s not like they’re striking against a company that was just minding its own business.
Perhaps there can be labor relations boards and anti-discrimination regulation and such to prevent abuse of selective striking, but this is obviously a situation where everyone is a player and knows what game they’re playing.
It’s collective action and should be praised in an age where opaque corporations and oligarchs run everything.
If Starbucks workers go to work all day and serve every customer but Bob, that's not a strike or walkout. Those terms have real definitions.
That doesn't mean it isn't a union activity.
Is your sole problem with the fact that people are calling something a strike, and you personally don't think they should, according to your possibly single-country-centric view of the term, or is there a substantive objection?
If the plates were to be delivered not to Tesla, but to an individual, then they wouldn't be allowed not to deliver them?
What is not clear here? Sweden has very few strikes, but this is a textbook example of one. The postal worker's union have called for their members to refuse to carry out a specific work. This is well within their rights to do. The union calls for this as part of a collective action for their fellow workers.
The company delivering the parcels could call for their employer's union to lock out the workers on strike. But why would they want to escalate the conflict? They too prefer their collective bargaining agreements respected. And they are clearly not in violation of any of their contracts as this is a legal strike.
There are plenty of gray areas within worker's rights, but this is as simple as it could be.
The key thing is that for a strike to be declared it has to be called for by the union, it would be unprecedented to call a strike for political action against a party.
And is there a precedent for what's happening now?
Ironically, I think this would be illegal in Sweden but might be legal in the US under Title VII exemptions.
I'm not sure how the path matters much. It contains language along the lines of "I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of...."
I'm imagining having religious qualms about certain behaviors would fall under "best of my abilities"