The standard civil courts pipeline sucks as a mechanism for labor rights protection. You'll need expedited courts and a speedier process to dissuade this kind of thing. It needs to be as straightforward as child support law.
All courts are backlogged, many for years. Even "simple" issues can easily take 6+ months.
Child support law isn't that straightforward. It generally isn't even tied to the actual costs to raise the child. It's also rife with abuse for things like unreported income, misusing the money, etc.
If you are owned money, go to small claims court. If a thousand employees are owed money, the time spent for the company becomes painful indeed, and these court cases will raise the notoriety of the company in the department of labor's view.
Even so, the department of labor has it's own procedures it has to follow to make a fair investigation.
But if this year you vote for candidates who are more favorable to labor than the other candidates, and then you continue making that (part of) your strategy over the course of several elections, you can start to shift things. Especially if you can get other people on board with the movement.
It's not like the current situation came about by chance or some cosmic inevitability: the right wing in America has been consistently showing up and voting in larger numbers for decades to get where we are.
Labor wins that we have today have come from coordinated labor movements across partisan lines, not from voting and waiting on service from politicians
In the US, due to the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system, if Hindenburg was running against a candidate in the general election who was even one step worse than he was, then yes, I would have voted for him. Even if his platform included kicking puppies and stealing candy from babies. (Because, remember, in this hypothetical, his opponent's platform includes, say, setting fire to puppies and kicking babies.) Any other choice, under the system we have here, is mathematically certain to increase the chance of the candidate I like least winning.
Voting is not saying "I like this person and agree with everything they say." It is saying "I think that, of the two choices on offer, this person is the most likely to move the county/state/country toward the situation I prefer."
It's not about whether the vote makes me happy. It's about whether it makes the world a marginally better place than the realistic alternatives.
Well, in the case where the choices are Hindenburg (who, at that point in time, may or may not choose to give power to Hitler), or Hitler...Hindenburg is objectively the correct choice.
It's also a great demonstration that the time to be trying to get yourself better options is before it gets to that point.
Voting and other forms of activism are not mutually exclusive, and removing voting from the equation does not particularly make those other forms more attractive, particularly given the likely reasons for people not to engage in other forms of activism today.
Makes lobbying over 50x more complicated.
The fact that a UK publication is on about it should be a clear signal that the authors are being influenced by an international interest would like to simplify the process.
Probably chipotle
Here's a page that lists like, a third of the state agencies, I guess, hope this helps! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Labour
The Guardian has had an office in the US to produce local content for over a decade, now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US
They’ve been quiet quitting across the country since the George Floyd protests and they are working less than ever. Police interventions have been going down, crime has been going up, but staffing and funding has been mostly flat. They’re just not doing their jobs because they know if they hold out, funding will increase.
Also sometimes they just kill you.
Even if I were a victim of a major crime I wouldn’t contact the police in the USA unless I needed a police report number for my insurance claim. They’re probably not going to do anything and they might make things a million times worse.
I’m aware of maybe ten or so property crimes committed against friends, family, and employers, with damage and theft ranging from low-thousands (2024 dollars—some of these were decades ago) to $20k or so. I’ve never once known the police to do anything but scoff at the notion and treat you like an idiot if you go in thinking they’re going to investigate anything at all, no matter how much evidence is available.
And all the people concerned were/are white and middle class, for the record. Even then, nothing.
It’s one of the reasons I tepidly support the more extreme end of “defund”. Let fucking wal-mart or whoever’s getting actual value from the cops pay for them. Me and mine surely aren’t getting our money’s worth.
Hell, the clearance rate on murders is %50, and that includes a substantial chunk of people incorrectly found guilty despite the cops having DNA evidence that would exonerate them.
Getting the cops involved is like showing up with an assault rifle. Even if you intend that no one gets hurt, it's a a dangerous escalation.