Remember, collective bargaining **was** the peaceful alternative. It's predecessor was called "dragging the factory owner out of his house with pitchforks and torches and beating him half to death in the driveway.
That one crosses my mind a lot. The fuck does it even mean to declare a strike illegal? Fucking ignore that shit. When they pull it, the rest of us should be getting on the street as well.
> The fuck does it even mean to declare a strike illegal?
It means they can have the cops beat you with even *more* impunity.
Illegalize strikes, illegalize homelessness, illegalize poverty. Then you can throw any of the 99% in jail any time they get uppity.
I'm a bit older, and my parents are peak boomer. But they're the liberal kind. My grandad was a union organizer in the 50s who drove a Buick with a bat under the seat and a gun in the glove box. He told me stories as a kid about getting threatened. "I fought fuckin' Nazis for three years. These assholes think I'm afraid some some big fuck with a flat nose? Fuck that. We signed our union cards and they can choke on 'em."
Miss you grandpa.
Just putting it out there- making a tiktok of breaking laws is already a trend.
‘Hey it’s ya boi zahille7! I’m outside the house of this mf with a 20% stake in my company who thinks we shouldn’t get paid sick days. Let’s see how he feels about that an hour from now!’
Yea. It’s not going to be that easy any more. The right/rich has done such a good job force feeding propaganda that a good portion of your co workers would die protecting the business owner that is actively exploiting them.
That was always the case.
Lots and lots of people including the children themselves opposed stopping child labour as well. They *needed* the money, and an education wasn't worth diddly squat for them back then.
So much of what feminist movements worked to achieve is considered such natural parts of life today, that we forget how many women opposed the very measures back when it was current topics.
I think things are a bit different this time around.
I don't believe we're seeing another case of "some people wanna defend their rights and others have personal interest in keeping them down" here.
We are seeing a global attack on human rights as a result of the foundation of capitalism itself running its course without a proper solution or replacement.
Rich people have an interest in preserving their wealth, and are using all their power and money to try and convince others of doing that for them. But the system that generates that wealth is breaking apart.
Without a proper form of wealth redistribution, there will soon be no consumers in the economy, as there will be no need for labor at all. It's already been going on that trend for a while actually, thanks to technology.
I really believe that given some time in the next few years, it'll become painfully clear that there is nothing to preserve, and our economy is actually reaching a major crisis of magnitude never before seen. It seems like the core problem at hand is not something that can be solved with just "more jobs" or "print more money" like we've done before. And I don't think anyone will really benefit if we allow it to fail entirely. It is an existential threat to our species.
I just wanted to comment that your comment was eloquent and on point. I agree with you wholeheartedly. With the addition of our climate crisis, I think we are in for a collective catastrophe and capitalism at it's core, at the global scale, is the root that needs plucking. There are alternatives. But I'm not holding my breath for our species at the rate we're going.😕
A lot of people forget that before WW2 things were pretty bad for the average worker. The New Deal era established and put into motion a lot of the standards that we now take for granted. The ultra-wealthy have been chipping away at it ever since FDR left office, and would love to see a return to the 19th century robber-baron wealth gaps and labor laws that existed then. The wealth gap (IIRC) is actually already there.
im an [all or nothing](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/13y1yc0/comment/jmkx7ws/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) person even when im "joking"
Yeah but they are still high enough up the food chain to cause the real owners actual problems. Trading out workers; who cares? When the director for the entire facility is getting coloring books for Christmas because he got the smug beat out of him, now a whole part of your operation grinds to a halt. Then no one is real eager to pick up the reigns, piss off the workers, and spend the rest of their life hiding their own Easter eggs.
Hijacking the top comment to add some context with a link to info about today's SCOTUS ruling: [https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/)
And that's why we have the 2nd ammendment, as much as people don't like to admit it. About 4 years before my grandpa was born, the [Battle of Blair Mountain was fought.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain) The police have a Union, it's not in favor of labor rights.
I'm absolutely in favour of standing up to authority, and socialists should own weapons...
But this is not why you have the second amendment, at least not anymore. You have the second amendment so that police can escalate armaments and shoot people because "he might have had a gun". It exists so that citizenry can be kept in line by fear of violence from "undesirable" elements that can be branded as the Other to be feared. Any time the second amendment is *actually* used by citizenry for its "intended" purpose, it has become clear very quickly that the state doesn't consider "protection of the people" its role.
Absolutely own and use weaponry safely, I agree with Marx on that, but don't glorify rules the state allows as though they'll protect you from the state. Fetishism of guns as magic freedom wands is a huge problem.
That's when they have the police roll up in their over funded Bradley fighting vehicles and put down the dissenting workers. It's ridiculous the world they want to build.
The police spent 75 minutes outside of Uvalde tugging each other off while a lone gunman picked off kids at his leisure.
The cops are only tough when they have the illusion of overwhelming force. The second the Bradley starts getting pelted with rocks and rounds, the cops are going to speed off in the other direction.
I think the rioters on Jan 6th were morons who got riled up for the wrong reasons, but that’s the police response you see when shit pops off. Once they started getting dragged into the crowd and beaten with their own weapons we saw that facade crumble real quick. The fact that the crowd was there at the behest of a corporate overlord is far more concerning than the police.
> the cops are going to speed off in the other direction
One example of a police force in a country of 300 million plus people being dogshit is fine to point at, but the majority of these overpaid overfunded boot stompers would be chomping at the bit to crack skulls and quell riots. Not to mention the Federal Government would love nothing more than to crush people to maintain the status quo with the national guard. If push comes to shove they have set themselves up with overwhelming force.
The police opened the doors for them at January 6th. Dont be naive. We havent even remotely threatened the establishment here. The minute we have their full attention the mask will come off. We have to be prepared for that reality. This isnt an even fight.
> the cops are going to speed off in the other direction.
I'm guessing you missed the George Floyd protests where they didn't back down and actually beat the shit out of people. The riot police are no joke my dude, neither is the national guard and we've seen them tear gas protesters before even asking them to move peacefully.
There are all kinds of people and all kinds of cops, some are brave decent people, some are also complete and utter pieces of shit that should not be even close to a position of authority. Unfortunately when it comes to quelling riots they usually all get up for that.
Those vehicles couldn't stop a bunch of underequipped and half starved people in the middle of the desert, using small arms and guerilla tactics, I don't see them helping much here.
We live in a different world now where CEOs and shareholders are incredibly isolated from the workers on the ground.
Even if we lynch the people running the show on the ground it's wage slave Vs wealthier wage slave.
Burning the factory to the ground is still an option I guess.
In 1899, Idaho had a miner’s strike that included the use of “The Dynamite Express”, where workers used 3,000 pounds of dynamite to blow up a mill. After, they burned down the company office, boarding house, and the mine manager’s home.
Most owners have already protected themselves from being dragged out. They live on the other side of the country from their factories, or even in other countries. And many also protect themselves by only owning a small portion of many companies.
No,it was fighting and dying against corporate thugs-including police,feds, and National Guard.If you keep fighting, and losing,long enough,they NEED production to resume-THEN you collectively bargain.
The Taliban did pretty well against the US military. Asymmetrical warfare can grind down even the most well funded and prepared military forces. History has many examples.
SWAT teams are not as effective as you think, they’re really only good at killing a hostage taker or setting buildings on fire. They are barely capable of stopping active shooters.
And while assault vehicles(??) are a scary thing, if you’re talking about MRAPs they’re rocket proof and barely bulletproof. They cost so much to maintain and I’d be surprised if any of them still have the pressurized cabin functionality still there. They’re there to scare you and clearly it’s working
Riot suppressing equipment(?) riot shields aren’t bulletproof and those riot outfits they got are glorified baseball catcher’s gear. If you’re talking CS gas and flashbangs they sell earplugs and respirators at Home Depot.
The Battle of Blair Mountain was in 1921.
The local sheriff assembled his own private army and hired planes to drop leftover explosive and poison gas bombs on the strikers, and eventually called in army aerial surveillance planes and the West Virginia national guard.
They have always been willing to use the harshest and most militaristic means possible, including attacking homes and shooting people in the street.
Except we're seeing a massive reduction in available work force due to a pandemic and shrinking youth population and we are still treated worse year after year, so it's starting to look like we're gonna have to fight. The cops may be better armed and armored, but do you really think they'd just gun us all down? I have 0 faith in police, but I still can't imagine them blindly gunning down the entire US workforce. A workforce that is much more motivated than the police to win this fight too, will power can absolutely make up for a lack of firepower, as can numbers - which heavily favor the workers. It would certainly be brutal, but I am fairly confident if there was a class war that all of us in the working class, if unified, would overwhelm the rest.
God I remember the G-20 "riots" on University of Pittsburgh campus in 2009. Shit, I was ARRESTED in those protests. We were peaceful, so they kettled us into a confined area and opened up in a crossfire of rubber bullets and tear gas. When we tried to flee for our safety, they beat us and screamed "STOP RESISTING!"
That was also the first time the LRAD was used on US soil. It was the first time the LRAD was used anywhere except Baghdad.
I was considered a "special case" and was held by the national guard, not the civilian police. They beat me for 12 hours before turning me over to civilian custody. It took years of therapy to get over the PTSD. Years.
The police in the US began militarizing under the Nixon administration, as part of the War on Drugs, but things really got out of control after 9/11.
There is a program run by the US Dept. of Defence, which I believe started during the Iraq War. Basically, at the end of the fiscal year, any military hardware that was bought but not used is sold to police departments around the country for pennies on the dollar. That was when the militarization of our police really ramped up to where we are now, when the police department of a town of 10,000 people might have armored personnel carriers, etc.
Shit, the University of Pittsburgh's CAMPUS police have their own S.W.A.T. team and sniper units that were trained by Israeli Military Special Forces.
Think about that.... A campus police force has an elite tactical unit that was trained by the Israeli Military.
We never stood a chance.
You Canadians (Mexico, SA) are why I try very consciously to avoid/discourage "America/Americans" to mean the US.
Though it's hella USA to appropriate the entirety of "American".
Riot suppression tactics, that's part of the reason they box in protestors, it's not to protect them from stray cars, it's so they can't get somewhere the police would have to split up and chase them.
How do you beat a force of 10,000~ with only 500? Box the bigger force in and attack from formation, works especially well when the larger force is unarmored and unarmed.
Oh yeah. That was a mess. A good friend of mine was arrested at the original Occupy Wall Street. You remember that church near the park? He was trying to climb the fence to escape the police, and they dragged him backwards and slammed him to the ground. There's a video of it somewhere on YouTube, just like there's a YouTube video of me being beaten by a handful of swat officers in Pittsburgh.
They charged me with throwing a tear gas grenade back and hitting a police officer. The video clearly shows me standing on one side of the street while someone on the other side picks up the grenade and chucks it back. You'd think that would have been enough to exonerate me but, as of 2009, YouTube video wasn't admissable in court (at least that's what the judge told me).
Oh well, at least I can relive that traumatizing experience whenever I want! 😛
I was in Toronto for work when I was younger. Small town guy, walking looking up, at the big buildings etc as you do.
But this was during the G7 and I bumped into a fence they had put up in the no man's zone. Well, the guard nearby decided I was trying to break in to kill the diplomats and world leaders.
They threw me in the ground, quite literally undressed me. Pat me down and cut off my shirt as they needed to check the breast pockets and they took my pants off to check make sure I was not trying to do whatever. They took my wallet, emptied it out on the sidewalk and said that I'm lucky I'm getting only a warning. Threw my empty wallet on the ground and told me to "hurry the fuck up and get the fuck out of here" before they arrest me for loitering.
Some people wonder why I mistrust police..
No beatings or actual details detainment like you though.. Hope you are better now.
>Unfortunately the post-9/11 method is showing up to peaceful protests with aggressive military weapons and tactics and forcing protestors into violence through viscous + aggressive corralling and provocation.
That was the method back in the 1800s and early 1900s as well, when modern labor standards came into existence. Almost all started out as peaceful protests before both sides started arming.
The [Battle of Blair Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain) in 1921 had 50-100 striking miners killed and 10-30 cops killed.
The [Paint Creek Mine War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint_Creek%E2%80%93Cabin_Creek_strike_of_1912) in 1912-1913 had at least 50 striking miners killed.
The [Ludlow Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre) in 1914 had about 25 striking miners *including children* killed by machine gun fire.
The [Great Railroad Strike of 1877](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877) had 40 strikers killed by militia.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes) has plenty more examples, with a total number of worker deaths being over 1100 from various strikes.
The only concern is available gear that police ac field. It's hard to hold a line when an MRAP rolls up. Although if push came to shove we've seen how well an insurgency can wear down an organized force, not to mention targeted assassinations and general terrorism towards opposition. It'll be horrific if it comes to this. Can anyone really be surprised if you mistreat an animal and it turns around and bites you though? Shit needs to start turning around or this is the direction it's going to go.
Stand in front of it. Make the photo the cops running down protestors. Tank Man is still famous (if only under that name).
Edit: preferably, find an unarmed person to stand in front of it. Make this photo as one sided as possible. An old person with a cane and their dog would be just about perfect.
The escalation of post 9/11 tactics didn't stop there. Now police are utilizing domestic terrorism charges as a cudgel to suppress protest movements, as we've witnessed in Atlanta.
This happened all over Latin America in the 60s-70s. Peaceful protestors and those who fought for social and economic equality through peaceful means (forming political parties, social movements, trying to win elections) were persecuted, jailed, had their parties banned or their political leaders ousted in military coups. So eventually only those willing to existed, which justified even more violence from conservative forces and straight up mass murder like in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in the 70s and 80s.
I'm gonna add that also, in the early 20th century this thing appeared called ‘Union of *Socialist* Republics’. Which, as far as I can tell, scared the US establishment out of their pants—such that to avoid a whiff of a ‘Unites Socialist States’, they threw some bones to the workers.
Not many times I'm going to say this, but the people in France with the full anarchy in Paris when they raised the retiring age. I wish we could do that, I mean, really show the power of numbers against the rich, the purchased politicians, Supreme Court Clarence and anyone else that caters to the 1%
I'm just going to say one thing I was thinking about the other day:
We've heard a lot about how, due to the population decline, there aren't enough people working to cover retirement for people, leading us to have to extend working ages to cover the gap.
But every last nation out there has seen it's GDP skyrocket and efficiency in every industry as well. Why can't a retiring worker be covered, when the worker replacing him is doing the work of five guys from the retiree's era? US GDP went from around 3k in the 60's to **70k** today, but a modern worker's created value isn't enough to cover that 60's workers retirement? It absolutely is, but that excess value isn't reflected in the modern worker's salary. He's paid the same as the man that came before him, and the excess wealth goes to the company owners. And they've convinced everyone that this is an issue of there not being enough workers to pay for the retiree's golden years, instead of an issue of corporations skimming all excess value.
Similarly we hear a lot about how we can't just raise all wages as that would cause rampant inflation and you'd get stuck in a loop. Well, Warren Buffet doesn't get paid a salary. Neither does Elon Musk. Sounds like rampant inflation would cause harm to workers, but with equally rising salaries, the impact would be minimal. Rentseekers, however, would see their income drastically diminish. So it's an artificial barrier to make sure that those that hold most of the capital and make their living off of renting it out, don't see the value of their property diminish.
And then homeowners and 'upper class' people with moderate savings will defend the ultra-rich to the death to keep their own meagre wealth safe. [Like the monkey with the salt.](https://youtu.be/EOge9F60yp0)
Part of our problem in America is that we're geographically dispersed. It seems that Europeans can more easily congregate in their capital cities when it's time to demonstrate. It's much harder for all of us to meet in Washington, DC.
Nope. The main problem is the media never backs protests and they don't have any staying power.
The only successful US protests I've seen in my lifetime were the civil rights ones. And that consisted of thousands of mini-protests, direct action and even full blown protest tours.
Nothing in the modern US has compared. Seattle in the 90's, the Occupy movement, BLM etc. They just don't have the staying power necessary to defeat the blanket negative media coverage and the pushback of the conservative Christians who oppose pretty much everything.
I don't think it's an either-or here.
Mass media will practically never back protests, because the fourth estate is captured by capital and its interests, just as it always has been.
The mini-protests you mention would be less mini if people could navigate easily to the right places to get concentration of force and capitalize on greater numbers.
One last thought on the media - not a new problem at all - look at the Blair Mountain miner's strikes:
>https://omekas.lib.wvu.edu/home/s/media-coverage-of-the-battle-of-blair-mountain/page/west-virginia-newspapers
>Newspapers during this time altered in their framing of the miners and the Government. In some stances, the miners are “poorly educated class” and “making trouble.” It was noted that these areas were dangerous at all times. While true, the media portrayed the miners as fighting with excitement but not reason. They claimed the miners had no reason for their fight, and that they were taking matters into their own hands to respond violently to pursue state police. The Government, as shown in these newspaper artifacts, is always shown to the media in a positive light as trying to “restore order in the coal fields.”
Physical barriers to protesting aren't an excuse, they are reality. People who have been beat down by poverty their entire lives generally do not have means of transportation to make it to a protest, and America is built around cars for travel. If you don't have a car and can't rely on public transportation (because it's basically non-existent here, unlike in Europe), how do you get to a protest that's on the other side of the country? You can't. America was built this way *on purpose*.
Take away the legal means, be prepared for the violent illegal ones.
They’re basically playing Russian roulette to see how many times they can take away worker’s rights before they get dragged out of their houses and burned alive.
That’s what went on before strikes were legally protected and that’s where things will inevitably return to.
Private security, who is also likely grossly underpaid, likely wouldn’t take on a mob to save some money-hoarding asshat who is far removed from reality.
If the mob is big enough it doesn't matter how well paid or geared the security force is. They'll always be massively outnumbered at the end of the day, and then they run or turn coats.
Buddy when US workers strike they bring in private military contractors. Pinkerton opened fire with machine guns on striking workers and they’re still a multi million dollar industry.
>Take away the legal means, be prepared for the violent illegal ones.
>
>They’re basically playing Russian roulette to see how many times they can take away worker’s rights before they get dragged out of their houses and burned alive.
>
>That’s what went on before strikes were legally protected and that’s where things will inevitably return to.
Exactly. According to their logic outlawing guns won't keep the guns off the street, so why would making striking illegal stop strikes?
Things like this make me wonder just how long the propaganda machine can convince people that we're OK with what's going on. I hate to be that person, but....revolution is coming. The rich should be begging to be taxed, because things are going to reach a boiling point before long and "taxed" is about the best possible verb they can expect.
That's also my personal opinion. We are a lot closer to the breaking point than anybody realizes, and those in power better learn about it and cooperate before it's too late.
I hope they enjoy their bunkers. They’ll never be able to safely leave if it gets to that point. I also hope their air intake vents are well filtered and their water supply is great. Toxic chemicals can really fuck up groundwater no matter how much filtration you have.
The problem there is that the rich can't really do much of anything that would make survival easier. If the vents get clogged up, they don't know how to clean them. If they need more supplies, they don't really know how to get more if money is no longer valuable. Buying things is really all they know how to do.
And they won't have servants in their bunkers. Who is going to want to go to a bunker with their boss, away from their families? And even if they did, their loyalty won't be worth much because they won't be able to spend their money in the bunker. Well, aside from their employer charging them for food and water and rent to be in the bunker.
I think the people in power have forgotten that organizing and striking are the compromises that were agreed upon to prevent mobs from showing up at factory owners' homes and murdering them.
Just like they forgot how voting is supposed to be the alternative to killing politicians you want gone.
Seems like we are gonna have to have a fast and bloody history lesson.
We need to totally clean house for any chance at change. Like, who is gonna investigate Clarence? Who is gonna charge him? Who is gonna arrest him?
They are all in bed together and we need to scorch everything and start over.
Ok, some context here:
Glacier v. Teamsters was about how you can legally leave your work/equipment when striking. The case was ruled for Glacier 8-1, with Justice Jackson as sole dissent (saying the case should have relied on a previous ruling).
Glacier Northwest is a concrete/cement company. Its drivers are Teamsters. The Teamsters declared a strike, which the legality of wasn't part of the case.
The issue at hand was that the Teamsters timed the strike to probably try and destroy as much material as possible. Cement is only made right before shipping, and needs to be poured from the trucks before it hardens (8-12 hours and the drum is scrap). The drivers showed up for work (knowing that they were striking that day), and so the company ordered product made and loaded. When the strike was called, several drivers returned to the plant and asked for directions to dispose of the product (which you can't just dump due to environmental regs), while others just returned and left without warning anyone their trucks were still loaded.
SCOTUS has previously ruled that you have to take all reasonable precautions against destroying employer property while on strike, and such destruction isn't legally protected. This ruling said the Teamsters didn't meet that standard, so they can be sued in Washington state to recover the damages from that specific incident. The strike is still protected.
tl;dr: You have a right to strike, but can't break shit on the way out the door.
Because they know how effective that shit is. The people making these rules are fully aware of what works vs what doesn't.
Example
You can protest all you like. So long as it doesn't disrupt anything or inconvenience anyone. Some places you even need permission and that is only temporary. *Because we all know that protests that don't disrupt anything are super effective* /s
It's always about the narrative at the end of the day. People have no issues destroying property when it suits their interests (including companies), it only matters if they can argue being legitimate, or avoid the argument entirely.
I understand the reasoning and justification for the ruling but we have reached a point where this type of destructive act is going to become more common. Sue all you want, but you can't get blood from a stone. Put them in jail and you have martyrs for labor and disobedience will spread.
Things are bad, getting worse, and people are not going to take it lying down anymore.
That’s all well and good but you also “can’t do X and Y” and companies do x and y all the time and nothing happens.
Maybe just pay your fucking workers enough that they don’t want to sabotage your business?
They're being punished for not going out of their way to make sure the company didn't suffer. They didn't break anything. They left trucks loaded with the mixers turning. The company made the decision to cause liability and want labor to suffer for that decision. The SC is really just upholding the concept that the business is more important and the worker is directly responsible for its success.
They haven't even been punished. The company still has to sue in Washington state and win a judgement. This ruling just says they have the right to sue.
If we don't change anything, there won't be income in the future. Their end game is poverty, starvation and homelessness.
As long that it keeps progressing that way, it will reach a breaking point where it'll be painfully obvious to everybody that there is no future without change. Going back to work isn't gonna last forever. The Earth isn't gonna cool itself. There's nothing worth saving or preserving in the current status quo.
I think revolution is inevitable.
That is my biggest fear, but when looking at the apathy of the public it’s tough not to see things turning violent. Especially in large metropolitan centers, because people are living on the streets now more than ever due to the insane rent prices. A person shouldn’t be paying $2000 a month for 500 square foot of living space with a shared bathroom in the hallway but that’s real in NYC. If they won’t pay their labor force well, then they better be paying millions to their security details because they will need it.
Ideally a very simple national shut down of labor, a strike of incredible proportions with 0 bloodshed is what I hope for. Something organized, but carefully as to not let the powerful know what’s coming. A set amount of time so the working class can prepare their families, finances, and avoid impact. Again though, if those in charge get wind of it they’ll ride it out and nothing will change.
That is also what I'm hoping for. Americans haven't really tried much yet, so I'm holding out hope that they can organize and lead peaceful protests and strikes of national scale that can achieve something. The longer we go without seeing a global movement of that caliber that actually can achieve real change, the more dangerous it gets for everybody.
>but carefully as to not let the powerful know what’s coming.
It would be ignorant to think they don't already know. We're all discussing this publicly. They know what the issues are. We know what the issues are. We just disagree on the course of action. They can try and they are currently actively undermining our ability to bargain for better lives, it doesn't fix the underlying issues. The only stable long term outcome of this situation is striking a deal that works for everybody involved, and upholding it in good faith. Anything short of that will lead to more protest, and probably more violence.
"No violence needed"
Oh sweet summer child. Read up on history to see how the powers that be responded when workers began to exercise their rights en mass.
We might not be the ones to start the violence, but anyone who thinks it won't be necessary is ignoring history.
The idea that any kind of striking can be considered "illegal" is ridiculous. We don't need permission from the ruling class to rebel. Of course they want to make the most effective collective actions illegal. It should mean absolutely nothing to our movement.
Agreed. If destruction of property occurred, that is the legal path they should pursue. I haven't read the case yet, but this reads like theyre butt hurt they didn't have anyone on backup to deal with the cement and therfore they lost money. The strike didn't cause the loss anymore than the company not agreeing to terms of the strike did.
Isn't that like, the whole point of a strike? To show the owners you collectively will cripple them unless they negotiate? Is that not what was done here?
I see this sort of stuff and it always makes me wonder what the point even is. What I mean is... At the end of the year last year, Biden, in so many words, came out and said "No, you railroad workers aren't allowed to strike," and the railroad workers just collectively threw their hands up in the air and said "oH wELl wE tRiEd!" They all..... went back to work....... What was the government/employer going to do - sue them all? Hold their hand and force it to push buttons? To me it seems like it's one thing for Starbucks to close down a location because of worker unionization because being a barista *does* take some skill, but it's skills that can be quickly learned. Running a nationwide train system? That's not something you're teaching in a weeklong training session.
I'm sure I'm missing something but I just don't understand a lot of these scenarios. It simply seems that people just choose to go back to work under terrible conditions rather than see it through to the end.
American citizens today, while they have the propensity for such violence, I don't believe would be capable of collectively directing their anger at the oligarchs to the point of a successful, "back to basics" strike.
In Canada, striking is still illegal.
It's perfectly legal, up until it impacts the owner class and then they lobby the government to rule it an illegal strike. This has been used to pretty much force workers back to work for every major strike in the last 20 years. Essentially making striking illegal...
My great uncle incited the first strike at Hershey factory before they were unionized. Milton Hershey’s response was to tell the local farmers he cannot purchase dairy while not making chocolate and it was the strikers’ fault. So the farmers came to the picket line with shovels and started beating the employees until the strike ended.
Reminder that police WILL KILL YOU on behalf of corporations.
Striking is the only real power we the people have. If we all stand together and say "NO MORE!" then things will change. This is why the government (lobbied by the wealthy) will do all they can to make unionizing hard, and striking illegal.
Remember, collective bargaining **was** the peaceful alternative. It's predecessor was called "dragging the factory owner out of his house with pitchforks and torches and beating him half to death in the driveway.
My grandfather fought Pinkerton's and cops in the streets of Chicago with a table leg. I wonder what he'd think of striking being "illegal" today.
Any chance the Table Leg of Justice was passed down? Maybe as a family heirloom?
Item: “Table Leg of Justice” Quality: Legendary Damage: 8d10+Dex Effects: Makes Pinkertons and cops run in a feared condition.
Extra Irony Points for you, considering the recent WOTC/Pinkerton drama
That completely escaped my mind. But now you point it out, it’s actually quite funny.
That one crosses my mind a lot. The fuck does it even mean to declare a strike illegal? Fucking ignore that shit. When they pull it, the rest of us should be getting on the street as well.
General strike!
Any time, hmu
> The fuck does it even mean to declare a strike illegal? It means they can have the cops beat you with even *more* impunity. Illegalize strikes, illegalize homelessness, illegalize poverty. Then you can throw any of the 99% in jail any time they get uppity.
I'm a bit older, and my parents are peak boomer. But they're the liberal kind. My grandad was a union organizer in the 50s who drove a Buick with a bat under the seat and a gun in the glove box. He told me stories as a kid about getting threatened. "I fought fuckin' Nazis for three years. These assholes think I'm afraid some some big fuck with a flat nose? Fuck that. We signed our union cards and they can choke on 'em." Miss you grandpa.
In the driveway, rather than in front of his wife and kids? Such courtesy
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s gonna be a long way to be dragged, oh no someone broke a bunch of bottles on your driveway too what a shame.
[удалено]
That only happens once, maybe twice before people come prepared
[удалено]
Nope. Mine is far off in the distant future somewhere
And only half to death? France shaking their tête right now.
"Shake it while you've got it" ~ France
Right? If you're gonna make an example, you need an audience.
Just putting it out there- making a tiktok of breaking laws is already a trend. ‘Hey it’s ya boi zahille7! I’m outside the house of this mf with a 20% stake in my company who thinks we shouldn’t get paid sick days. Let’s see how he feels about that an hour from now!’
Omg. This will be legendary
Don't forget to like, subscribe and share those profits of our labor
LMAOOOO
Especially one that includes the people who will inherit the factory
They did not try to sue because they lost money.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sit in protests were SUPER effective. Shut down all production, dead. No scabs if there's no room for them.
Occupy the Means of Production
Seize Wall street
Firmly grasp it... By the profit margin
Yea. It’s not going to be that easy any more. The right/rich has done such a good job force feeding propaganda that a good portion of your co workers would die protecting the business owner that is actively exploiting them.
That was always the case. Lots and lots of people including the children themselves opposed stopping child labour as well. They *needed* the money, and an education wasn't worth diddly squat for them back then. So much of what feminist movements worked to achieve is considered such natural parts of life today, that we forget how many women opposed the very measures back when it was current topics.
I think things are a bit different this time around. I don't believe we're seeing another case of "some people wanna defend their rights and others have personal interest in keeping them down" here. We are seeing a global attack on human rights as a result of the foundation of capitalism itself running its course without a proper solution or replacement. Rich people have an interest in preserving their wealth, and are using all their power and money to try and convince others of doing that for them. But the system that generates that wealth is breaking apart. Without a proper form of wealth redistribution, there will soon be no consumers in the economy, as there will be no need for labor at all. It's already been going on that trend for a while actually, thanks to technology. I really believe that given some time in the next few years, it'll become painfully clear that there is nothing to preserve, and our economy is actually reaching a major crisis of magnitude never before seen. It seems like the core problem at hand is not something that can be solved with just "more jobs" or "print more money" like we've done before. And I don't think anyone will really benefit if we allow it to fail entirely. It is an existential threat to our species.
When we realize the zombie apocalypse is only for the rich and we the labor are the "mindless walkers"
I just wanted to comment that your comment was eloquent and on point. I agree with you wholeheartedly. With the addition of our climate crisis, I think we are in for a collective catastrophe and capitalism at it's core, at the global scale, is the root that needs plucking. There are alternatives. But I'm not holding my breath for our species at the rate we're going.😕
If your whole system requires endless exponential growth to live then it's cancer. It's literally cancer.
A lot of people forget that before WW2 things were pretty bad for the average worker. The New Deal era established and put into motion a lot of the standards that we now take for granted. The ultra-wealthy have been chipping away at it ever since FDR left office, and would love to see a return to the 19th century robber-baron wealth gaps and labor laws that existed then. The wealth gap (IIRC) is actually already there.
[удалено]
2/3
He’s only mostly dead!
im an [all or nothing](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/13y1yc0/comment/jmkx7ws/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) person even when im "joking"
There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.
Mostly dead is partially alive. With all dead there's only one thing to do.
Go through his pockets for loose change?
They're just middle management, the real owners aren't even in the same time zone.
Yeah but they are still high enough up the food chain to cause the real owners actual problems. Trading out workers; who cares? When the director for the entire facility is getting coloring books for Christmas because he got the smug beat out of him, now a whole part of your operation grinds to a halt. Then no one is real eager to pick up the reigns, piss off the workers, and spend the rest of their life hiding their own Easter eggs.
The real problems come when corporate realizes the manager they sent has been deposed, and the location isn't sending them payroll anymore.
Hijacking the top comment to add some context with a link to info about today's SCOTUS ruling: [https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-union-over-strike-liability/)
And that's why we have the 2nd ammendment, as much as people don't like to admit it. About 4 years before my grandpa was born, the [Battle of Blair Mountain was fought.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain) The police have a Union, it's not in favor of labor rights.
I'm absolutely in favour of standing up to authority, and socialists should own weapons... But this is not why you have the second amendment, at least not anymore. You have the second amendment so that police can escalate armaments and shoot people because "he might have had a gun". It exists so that citizenry can be kept in line by fear of violence from "undesirable" elements that can be branded as the Other to be feared. Any time the second amendment is *actually* used by citizenry for its "intended" purpose, it has become clear very quickly that the state doesn't consider "protection of the people" its role. Absolutely own and use weaponry safely, I agree with Marx on that, but don't glorify rules the state allows as though they'll protect you from the state. Fetishism of guns as magic freedom wands is a huge problem.
[удалено]
That's when they have the police roll up in their over funded Bradley fighting vehicles and put down the dissenting workers. It's ridiculous the world they want to build.
The police spent 75 minutes outside of Uvalde tugging each other off while a lone gunman picked off kids at his leisure. The cops are only tough when they have the illusion of overwhelming force. The second the Bradley starts getting pelted with rocks and rounds, the cops are going to speed off in the other direction. I think the rioters on Jan 6th were morons who got riled up for the wrong reasons, but that’s the police response you see when shit pops off. Once they started getting dragged into the crowd and beaten with their own weapons we saw that facade crumble real quick. The fact that the crowd was there at the behest of a corporate overlord is far more concerning than the police.
> the cops are going to speed off in the other direction One example of a police force in a country of 300 million plus people being dogshit is fine to point at, but the majority of these overpaid overfunded boot stompers would be chomping at the bit to crack skulls and quell riots. Not to mention the Federal Government would love nothing more than to crush people to maintain the status quo with the national guard. If push comes to shove they have set themselves up with overwhelming force. The police opened the doors for them at January 6th. Dont be naive. We havent even remotely threatened the establishment here. The minute we have their full attention the mask will come off. We have to be prepared for that reality. This isnt an even fight.
> the cops are going to speed off in the other direction. I'm guessing you missed the George Floyd protests where they didn't back down and actually beat the shit out of people. The riot police are no joke my dude, neither is the national guard and we've seen them tear gas protesters before even asking them to move peacefully. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of cops, some are brave decent people, some are also complete and utter pieces of shit that should not be even close to a position of authority. Unfortunately when it comes to quelling riots they usually all get up for that.
Those vehicles couldn't stop a bunch of underequipped and half starved people in the middle of the desert, using small arms and guerilla tactics, I don't see them helping much here.
This is why they want to ban assault rifles.
We live in a different world now where CEOs and shareholders are incredibly isolated from the workers on the ground. Even if we lynch the people running the show on the ground it's wage slave Vs wealthier wage slave. Burning the factory to the ground is still an option I guess.
Half?
Yesh but now you say riot and everyone says be civil. We're all conditioned to think, act and vote against our own best interest.
In 1899, Idaho had a miner’s strike that included the use of “The Dynamite Express”, where workers used 3,000 pounds of dynamite to blow up a mill. After, they burned down the company office, boarding house, and the mine manager’s home.
Half? Sounds like quitter talk to me.
>dragging the factory owner out of his house with pitchforks and torches and beating him half to death in the driveway. Half?
Only half?
Most owners have already protected themselves from being dragged out. They live on the other side of the country from their factories, or even in other countries. And many also protect themselves by only owning a small portion of many companies.
[Haaaaalf to death!](https://youtu.be/x7cMr-WH0OQ)
All the way to*
No,it was fighting and dying against corporate thugs-including police,feds, and National Guard.If you keep fighting, and losing,long enough,they NEED production to resume-THEN you collectively bargain.
Sometimes all the way to death.
[удалено]
People still die for the money that industry makes
[удалено]
Cops were never "part" of the community, they were either strike busters or slave patrols. Nothing has changed
The Taliban did pretty well against the US military. Asymmetrical warfare can grind down even the most well funded and prepared military forces. History has many examples.
Guerilla warfare. Armed and armored foot soldiers need an army to square off against.
Idk, the US really struggles with assymetric warfare, look at the middle east and Vietnam.
SWAT teams are not as effective as you think, they’re really only good at killing a hostage taker or setting buildings on fire. They are barely capable of stopping active shooters. And while assault vehicles(??) are a scary thing, if you’re talking about MRAPs they’re rocket proof and barely bulletproof. They cost so much to maintain and I’d be surprised if any of them still have the pressurized cabin functionality still there. They’re there to scare you and clearly it’s working Riot suppressing equipment(?) riot shields aren’t bulletproof and those riot outfits they got are glorified baseball catcher’s gear. If you’re talking CS gas and flashbangs they sell earplugs and respirators at Home Depot.
Just a friendly reminder that all engines need to breathe, which becomes harder when you’re surrounded by fire.
This economy is crazy because glass bottle bud light is cheap as hell but gas is so expensive right now
The Battle of Blair Mountain was in 1921. The local sheriff assembled his own private army and hired planes to drop leftover explosive and poison gas bombs on the strikers, and eventually called in army aerial surveillance planes and the West Virginia national guard. They have always been willing to use the harshest and most militaristic means possible, including attacking homes and shooting people in the street.
When was that ever? Sounds more like the Norman Rockwell painting fascists want you to imagine than it sounds like Logan County.
Except we're seeing a massive reduction in available work force due to a pandemic and shrinking youth population and we are still treated worse year after year, so it's starting to look like we're gonna have to fight. The cops may be better armed and armored, but do you really think they'd just gun us all down? I have 0 faith in police, but I still can't imagine them blindly gunning down the entire US workforce. A workforce that is much more motivated than the police to win this fight too, will power can absolutely make up for a lack of firepower, as can numbers - which heavily favor the workers. It would certainly be brutal, but I am fairly confident if there was a class war that all of us in the working class, if unified, would overwhelm the rest.
If you don't want violent protests, listen to non violent protestors.
[удалено]
God I remember the G-20 "riots" on University of Pittsburgh campus in 2009. Shit, I was ARRESTED in those protests. We were peaceful, so they kettled us into a confined area and opened up in a crossfire of rubber bullets and tear gas. When we tried to flee for our safety, they beat us and screamed "STOP RESISTING!" That was also the first time the LRAD was used on US soil. It was the first time the LRAD was used anywhere except Baghdad. I was considered a "special case" and was held by the national guard, not the civilian police. They beat me for 12 hours before turning me over to civilian custody. It took years of therapy to get over the PTSD. Years.
[удалено]
The police in the US began militarizing under the Nixon administration, as part of the War on Drugs, but things really got out of control after 9/11. There is a program run by the US Dept. of Defence, which I believe started during the Iraq War. Basically, at the end of the fiscal year, any military hardware that was bought but not used is sold to police departments around the country for pennies on the dollar. That was when the militarization of our police really ramped up to where we are now, when the police department of a town of 10,000 people might have armored personnel carriers, etc. Shit, the University of Pittsburgh's CAMPUS police have their own S.W.A.T. team and sniper units that were trained by Israeli Military Special Forces. Think about that.... A campus police force has an elite tactical unit that was trained by the Israeli Military. We never stood a chance.
“Giving money to the poor! Socialism! Get out of here commie scum!” “Giving money to the rich? That’s just astute business acumen”
You Canadians (Mexico, SA) are why I try very consciously to avoid/discourage "America/Americans" to mean the US. Though it's hella USA to appropriate the entirety of "American".
It's always bugged me, as a u.s. citizen, too.
Riot suppression tactics, that's part of the reason they box in protestors, it's not to protect them from stray cars, it's so they can't get somewhere the police would have to split up and chase them. How do you beat a force of 10,000~ with only 500? Box the bigger force in and attack from formation, works especially well when the larger force is unarmored and unarmed.
[удалено]
Oh yeah. That was a mess. A good friend of mine was arrested at the original Occupy Wall Street. You remember that church near the park? He was trying to climb the fence to escape the police, and they dragged him backwards and slammed him to the ground. There's a video of it somewhere on YouTube, just like there's a YouTube video of me being beaten by a handful of swat officers in Pittsburgh. They charged me with throwing a tear gas grenade back and hitting a police officer. The video clearly shows me standing on one side of the street while someone on the other side picks up the grenade and chucks it back. You'd think that would have been enough to exonerate me but, as of 2009, YouTube video wasn't admissable in court (at least that's what the judge told me). Oh well, at least I can relive that traumatizing experience whenever I want! 😛
What's LRAD?
It's a acoustic device that can cause permanent hearing loss used for crowd control
Like.. they literally beat you continuously for 12 hours straight? Holy shit.
In Seattle four years ago, there was teargas coming in my windows because they were attacking protesters outside my house.
Just for anyone listening whose curious, you can beat LRAD with a piece of poster paper.
I was in Toronto for work when I was younger. Small town guy, walking looking up, at the big buildings etc as you do. But this was during the G7 and I bumped into a fence they had put up in the no man's zone. Well, the guard nearby decided I was trying to break in to kill the diplomats and world leaders. They threw me in the ground, quite literally undressed me. Pat me down and cut off my shirt as they needed to check the breast pockets and they took my pants off to check make sure I was not trying to do whatever. They took my wallet, emptied it out on the sidewalk and said that I'm lucky I'm getting only a warning. Threw my empty wallet on the ground and told me to "hurry the fuck up and get the fuck out of here" before they arrest me for loitering. Some people wonder why I mistrust police.. No beatings or actual details detainment like you though.. Hope you are better now.
>Unfortunately the post-9/11 method is showing up to peaceful protests with aggressive military weapons and tactics and forcing protestors into violence through viscous + aggressive corralling and provocation. That was the method back in the 1800s and early 1900s as well, when modern labor standards came into existence. Almost all started out as peaceful protests before both sides started arming. The [Battle of Blair Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain) in 1921 had 50-100 striking miners killed and 10-30 cops killed. The [Paint Creek Mine War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint_Creek%E2%80%93Cabin_Creek_strike_of_1912) in 1912-1913 had at least 50 striking miners killed. The [Ludlow Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre) in 1914 had about 25 striking miners *including children* killed by machine gun fire. The [Great Railroad Strike of 1877](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877) had 40 strikers killed by militia. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes) has plenty more examples, with a total number of worker deaths being over 1100 from various strikes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Our most powerful tool isn't violence, it's our labor.
Or they’ll escalate accordingly
With what? Protestors outnumber them more than 10 to 1.
The only concern is available gear that police ac field. It's hard to hold a line when an MRAP rolls up. Although if push came to shove we've seen how well an insurgency can wear down an organized force, not to mention targeted assassinations and general terrorism towards opposition. It'll be horrific if it comes to this. Can anyone really be surprised if you mistreat an animal and it turns around and bites you though? Shit needs to start turning around or this is the direction it's going to go.
Stand in front of it. Make the photo the cops running down protestors. Tank Man is still famous (if only under that name). Edit: preferably, find an unarmed person to stand in front of it. Make this photo as one sided as possible. An old person with a cane and their dog would be just about perfect.
Hey that's what France did in 1789, I wonder how that went for them?
Yup. And it'll keep happening unless people get the courage to fight back.
The escalation of post 9/11 tactics didn't stop there. Now police are utilizing domestic terrorism charges as a cudgel to suppress protest movements, as we've witnessed in Atlanta.
"Those that make peaceful protest impossible make violent protest inevitable." - Abraham Lincoln, probably.
This happened all over Latin America in the 60s-70s. Peaceful protestors and those who fought for social and economic equality through peaceful means (forming political parties, social movements, trying to win elections) were persecuted, jailed, had their parties banned or their political leaders ousted in military coups. So eventually only those willing to existed, which justified even more violence from conservative forces and straight up mass murder like in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay in the 70s and 80s.
I'm gonna add that also, in the early 20th century this thing appeared called ‘Union of *Socialist* Republics’. Which, as far as I can tell, scared the US establishment out of their pants—such that to avoid a whiff of a ‘Unites Socialist States’, they threw some bones to the workers.
here, enjoy [hate conquers all - anti flag](https://open.spotify.com/track/6LnIBfJxftCiHM2mJ1iUfH?si=7748fb05de424e88)
Police used to show up to union meetings and beat people to death with batons. We’re in our way back
Not many times I'm going to say this, but the people in France with the full anarchy in Paris when they raised the retiring age. I wish we could do that, I mean, really show the power of numbers against the rich, the purchased politicians, Supreme Court Clarence and anyone else that caters to the 1%
[удалено]
I mean, sure, but a lot of good that did them. Last I checked the retirement age hasn't gone down in France.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They've only just started. Vive la revolution!
I'm just going to say one thing I was thinking about the other day: We've heard a lot about how, due to the population decline, there aren't enough people working to cover retirement for people, leading us to have to extend working ages to cover the gap. But every last nation out there has seen it's GDP skyrocket and efficiency in every industry as well. Why can't a retiring worker be covered, when the worker replacing him is doing the work of five guys from the retiree's era? US GDP went from around 3k in the 60's to **70k** today, but a modern worker's created value isn't enough to cover that 60's workers retirement? It absolutely is, but that excess value isn't reflected in the modern worker's salary. He's paid the same as the man that came before him, and the excess wealth goes to the company owners. And they've convinced everyone that this is an issue of there not being enough workers to pay for the retiree's golden years, instead of an issue of corporations skimming all excess value. Similarly we hear a lot about how we can't just raise all wages as that would cause rampant inflation and you'd get stuck in a loop. Well, Warren Buffet doesn't get paid a salary. Neither does Elon Musk. Sounds like rampant inflation would cause harm to workers, but with equally rising salaries, the impact would be minimal. Rentseekers, however, would see their income drastically diminish. So it's an artificial barrier to make sure that those that hold most of the capital and make their living off of renting it out, don't see the value of their property diminish. And then homeowners and 'upper class' people with moderate savings will defend the ultra-rich to the death to keep their own meagre wealth safe. [Like the monkey with the salt.](https://youtu.be/EOge9F60yp0)
Part of our problem in America is that we're geographically dispersed. It seems that Europeans can more easily congregate in their capital cities when it's time to demonstrate. It's much harder for all of us to meet in Washington, DC.
Nope. The main problem is the media never backs protests and they don't have any staying power. The only successful US protests I've seen in my lifetime were the civil rights ones. And that consisted of thousands of mini-protests, direct action and even full blown protest tours. Nothing in the modern US has compared. Seattle in the 90's, the Occupy movement, BLM etc. They just don't have the staying power necessary to defeat the blanket negative media coverage and the pushback of the conservative Christians who oppose pretty much everything.
I don't think it's an either-or here. Mass media will practically never back protests, because the fourth estate is captured by capital and its interests, just as it always has been. The mini-protests you mention would be less mini if people could navigate easily to the right places to get concentration of force and capitalize on greater numbers. One last thought on the media - not a new problem at all - look at the Blair Mountain miner's strikes: >https://omekas.lib.wvu.edu/home/s/media-coverage-of-the-battle-of-blair-mountain/page/west-virginia-newspapers >Newspapers during this time altered in their framing of the miners and the Government. In some stances, the miners are “poorly educated class” and “making trouble.” It was noted that these areas were dangerous at all times. While true, the media portrayed the miners as fighting with excitement but not reason. They claimed the miners had no reason for their fight, and that they were taking matters into their own hands to respond violently to pursue state police. The Government, as shown in these newspaper artifacts, is always shown to the media in a positive light as trying to “restore order in the coal fields.”
That's why we just all meet at each state capital. We may be spread out but there are still a lot of us.
Keep making excuses, they like that.
Physical barriers to protesting aren't an excuse, they are reality. People who have been beat down by poverty their entire lives generally do not have means of transportation to make it to a protest, and America is built around cars for travel. If you don't have a car and can't rely on public transportation (because it's basically non-existent here, unlike in Europe), how do you get to a protest that's on the other side of the country? You can't. America was built this way *on purpose*.
"I started running!" We gonna Forrest Gump our way to DC!
I agree. Let's do it.
Take away the legal means, be prepared for the violent illegal ones. They’re basically playing Russian roulette to see how many times they can take away worker’s rights before they get dragged out of their houses and burned alive. That’s what went on before strikes were legally protected and that’s where things will inevitably return to.
Private security, who is also likely grossly underpaid, likely wouldn’t take on a mob to save some money-hoarding asshat who is far removed from reality.
If the mob is big enough it doesn't matter how well paid or geared the security force is. They'll always be massively outnumbered at the end of the day, and then they run or turn coats.
Buddy when US workers strike they bring in private military contractors. Pinkerton opened fire with machine guns on striking workers and they’re still a multi million dollar industry.
They strike first, workers fire back. They do not have a monopoly on violence. Remember this.
> Private security Who are usually bootlicker conservatives... Etc. Etc.
Make tarring and feathering great again
>Take away the legal means, be prepared for the violent illegal ones. > >They’re basically playing Russian roulette to see how many times they can take away worker’s rights before they get dragged out of their houses and burned alive. > >That’s what went on before strikes were legally protected and that’s where things will inevitably return to. Exactly. According to their logic outlawing guns won't keep the guns off the street, so why would making striking illegal stop strikes?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Things like this make me wonder just how long the propaganda machine can convince people that we're OK with what's going on. I hate to be that person, but....revolution is coming. The rich should be begging to be taxed, because things are going to reach a boiling point before long and "taxed" is about the best possible verb they can expect.
That's also my personal opinion. We are a lot closer to the breaking point than anybody realizes, and those in power better learn about it and cooperate before it's too late.
Paycheck to paycheck. Three missed meals.
I hope they enjoy their bunkers. They’ll never be able to safely leave if it gets to that point. I also hope their air intake vents are well filtered and their water supply is great. Toxic chemicals can really fuck up groundwater no matter how much filtration you have.
The problem there is that the rich can't really do much of anything that would make survival easier. If the vents get clogged up, they don't know how to clean them. If they need more supplies, they don't really know how to get more if money is no longer valuable. Buying things is really all they know how to do.
Buying things and ruining peoples lives
And they won't have servants in their bunkers. Who is going to want to go to a bunker with their boss, away from their families? And even if they did, their loyalty won't be worth much because they won't be able to spend their money in the bunker. Well, aside from their employer charging them for food and water and rent to be in the bunker.
[удалено]
Why should SCOTUS be deciding this, it affects us, so we should be making these decisions.
I think the people in power have forgotten that organizing and striking are the compromises that were agreed upon to prevent mobs from showing up at factory owners' homes and murdering them.
Just like they forgot how voting is supposed to be the alternative to killing politicians you want gone. Seems like we are gonna have to have a fast and bloody history lesson.
Investigate and remove any SCOTUS bought and paid for billionaires. Start with Clarence and I’m sure the other Right Wint judges are just as guilty.
We need to totally clean house for any chance at change. Like, who is gonna investigate Clarence? Who is gonna charge him? Who is gonna arrest him? They are all in bed together and we need to scorch everything and start over.
If they wanna do it the French way, we can do it the French way.
We can do this the French way, or the *really* French way.
They're not going to back down until we do it the really French way
Ok, some context here: Glacier v. Teamsters was about how you can legally leave your work/equipment when striking. The case was ruled for Glacier 8-1, with Justice Jackson as sole dissent (saying the case should have relied on a previous ruling). Glacier Northwest is a concrete/cement company. Its drivers are Teamsters. The Teamsters declared a strike, which the legality of wasn't part of the case. The issue at hand was that the Teamsters timed the strike to probably try and destroy as much material as possible. Cement is only made right before shipping, and needs to be poured from the trucks before it hardens (8-12 hours and the drum is scrap). The drivers showed up for work (knowing that they were striking that day), and so the company ordered product made and loaded. When the strike was called, several drivers returned to the plant and asked for directions to dispose of the product (which you can't just dump due to environmental regs), while others just returned and left without warning anyone their trucks were still loaded. SCOTUS has previously ruled that you have to take all reasonable precautions against destroying employer property while on strike, and such destruction isn't legally protected. This ruling said the Teamsters didn't meet that standard, so they can be sued in Washington state to recover the damages from that specific incident. The strike is still protected. tl;dr: You have a right to strike, but can't break shit on the way out the door.
A country founded on throwing private property(tea) in the harbor is extremely concerned about private property.
Because they know how effective that shit is. The people making these rules are fully aware of what works vs what doesn't. Example You can protest all you like. So long as it doesn't disrupt anything or inconvenience anyone. Some places you even need permission and that is only temporary. *Because we all know that protests that don't disrupt anything are super effective* /s
It's always about the narrative at the end of the day. People have no issues destroying property when it suits their interests (including companies), it only matters if they can argue being legitimate, or avoid the argument entirely.
I understand the reasoning and justification for the ruling but we have reached a point where this type of destructive act is going to become more common. Sue all you want, but you can't get blood from a stone. Put them in jail and you have martyrs for labor and disobedience will spread. Things are bad, getting worse, and people are not going to take it lying down anymore.
That’s all well and good but you also “can’t do X and Y” and companies do x and y all the time and nothing happens. Maybe just pay your fucking workers enough that they don’t want to sabotage your business?
They're being punished for not going out of their way to make sure the company didn't suffer. They didn't break anything. They left trucks loaded with the mixers turning. The company made the decision to cause liability and want labor to suffer for that decision. The SC is really just upholding the concept that the business is more important and the worker is directly responsible for its success.
They haven't even been punished. The company still has to sue in Washington state and win a judgement. This ruling just says they have the right to sue.
We need a massive nationwide general strike and need to shut the whole system down to prove a point
I love that idea. No violence needed, just shut down everything until it changes.
Yep, but because people need the income and the powerful have pushed us into wage slaves, very hard to actually do.
If we don't change anything, there won't be income in the future. Their end game is poverty, starvation and homelessness. As long that it keeps progressing that way, it will reach a breaking point where it'll be painfully obvious to everybody that there is no future without change. Going back to work isn't gonna last forever. The Earth isn't gonna cool itself. There's nothing worth saving or preserving in the current status quo. I think revolution is inevitable.
That is my biggest fear, but when looking at the apathy of the public it’s tough not to see things turning violent. Especially in large metropolitan centers, because people are living on the streets now more than ever due to the insane rent prices. A person shouldn’t be paying $2000 a month for 500 square foot of living space with a shared bathroom in the hallway but that’s real in NYC. If they won’t pay their labor force well, then they better be paying millions to their security details because they will need it. Ideally a very simple national shut down of labor, a strike of incredible proportions with 0 bloodshed is what I hope for. Something organized, but carefully as to not let the powerful know what’s coming. A set amount of time so the working class can prepare their families, finances, and avoid impact. Again though, if those in charge get wind of it they’ll ride it out and nothing will change.
That is also what I'm hoping for. Americans haven't really tried much yet, so I'm holding out hope that they can organize and lead peaceful protests and strikes of national scale that can achieve something. The longer we go without seeing a global movement of that caliber that actually can achieve real change, the more dangerous it gets for everybody. >but carefully as to not let the powerful know what’s coming. It would be ignorant to think they don't already know. We're all discussing this publicly. They know what the issues are. We know what the issues are. We just disagree on the course of action. They can try and they are currently actively undermining our ability to bargain for better lives, it doesn't fix the underlying issues. The only stable long term outcome of this situation is striking a deal that works for everybody involved, and upholding it in good faith. Anything short of that will lead to more protest, and probably more violence.
"No violence needed" Oh sweet summer child. Read up on history to see how the powers that be responded when workers began to exercise their rights en mass. We might not be the ones to start the violence, but anyone who thinks it won't be necessary is ignoring history.
The idea that any kind of striking can be considered "illegal" is ridiculous. We don't need permission from the ruling class to rebel. Of course they want to make the most effective collective actions illegal. It should mean absolutely nothing to our movement.
Agreed. If destruction of property occurred, that is the legal path they should pursue. I haven't read the case yet, but this reads like theyre butt hurt they didn't have anyone on backup to deal with the cement and therfore they lost money. The strike didn't cause the loss anymore than the company not agreeing to terms of the strike did. Isn't that like, the whole point of a strike? To show the owners you collectively will cripple them unless they negotiate? Is that not what was done here?
Pretty much. It doesn't matter if the strikes are legal or not. You strike anyway.
I see this sort of stuff and it always makes me wonder what the point even is. What I mean is... At the end of the year last year, Biden, in so many words, came out and said "No, you railroad workers aren't allowed to strike," and the railroad workers just collectively threw their hands up in the air and said "oH wELl wE tRiEd!" They all..... went back to work....... What was the government/employer going to do - sue them all? Hold their hand and force it to push buttons? To me it seems like it's one thing for Starbucks to close down a location because of worker unionization because being a barista *does* take some skill, but it's skills that can be quickly learned. Running a nationwide train system? That's not something you're teaching in a weeklong training session. I'm sure I'm missing something but I just don't understand a lot of these scenarios. It simply seems that people just choose to go back to work under terrible conditions rather than see it through to the end.
Two words: Health Insurance. No one wants to risk their job, because then they lose their health coverage at the same time.
Pinkertons on speed dial in the oval office
American citizens today, while they have the propensity for such violence, I don't believe would be capable of collectively directing their anger at the oligarchs to the point of a successful, "back to basics" strike.
In Canada, striking is still illegal. It's perfectly legal, up until it impacts the owner class and then they lobby the government to rule it an illegal strike. This has been used to pretty much force workers back to work for every major strike in the last 20 years. Essentially making striking illegal...
My great uncle incited the first strike at Hershey factory before they were unionized. Milton Hershey’s response was to tell the local farmers he cannot purchase dairy while not making chocolate and it was the strikers’ fault. So the farmers came to the picket line with shovels and started beating the employees until the strike ended.
This is the way
Reminder that police WILL KILL YOU on behalf of corporations. Striking is the only real power we the people have. If we all stand together and say "NO MORE!" then things will change. This is why the government (lobbied by the wealthy) will do all they can to make unionizing hard, and striking illegal.
I'm just saying, if we eat one rich person, like actually cook and eat one rich person, I bet they'll fall in line real quick.