85
submitted 1 year ago by kool_newt@lemm.ee to c/general@lemmy.world

One of the primary purposes of the police is to be able to break labor uprisings. This is so wrong and should be prevented in the strongest way possible. What do you all think? Is the U.S. constitution able to restrict police?

People from outside the U.S., what do you think of this type of idea?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Unlike the nuclear plant example, the supreme Court case did not endanger lives. All it did was threaten profit. Big difference.

[-] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 0 points 1 year ago

It specifically damaged property on purpose.

Your right to strike isn't a right to damage stuff that doesn't belong to you as a bargaining tactic.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They didn't damage property on purpose. They chose a time to strike that would maximize the impact to the employer. Glacier Northwest knew full well that their contract with the union was expired. Without a contract, labor is under no obligation to continue working if they do choose, no matter how inconvenient or costly. Management still chose to send out full cement trucks with non-contracted drivers who had every right to walk away at any time. Management suffered from their own poor choices.

[-] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 0 points 1 year ago

It's probably a good thing that the rest of the world doesn't think in this way.

Imagine if you hired a contractor to work on your kitchen, and the money ran out, and they left all your taps on with the drain plug in because they knew that that would damage your house. If a contractor did that, and cause damage to your house, of course they would be liable for what they just did. "We didn't damage your house, we just chose to stop working at the moment that would have maximum impact!"

Under virtually any other circumstance, nobody would have accepted that logic. Its probably unlawful, and it's definitely immoral.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Contractors can and do leave people with their water shut off and their electrical ripped out if they are not compensated sufficiently for their work. What the unions did is no different. All the business had to do is sufficiently compensate the workers to avoid the problem.

[-] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net -1 points 1 year ago

There's a difference between leaving a job undone and leaving a job in a situation that's going to cause damage. Contractor might leave the water off, they're not going to leave the water on filling up a basement that doesn't have any drainage.

this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
85 points (94.7% liked)

General Discussion

11946 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS