577

Mark your calendars

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] theluddite@lemmy.ml 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

4 years seems reasonable to me. It takes most organizations six months to do literally anything outside the status quo. A general strike is an attempt to organize a coalition of federations of organizations.

Why the fuck would you give four years of warning for managers to document “a slow accumulation of poor performance” and other bullshit to shit can pro-union employees.

This is the reality of striking. The threat and build up to the strike are just as important as the actual strike, because it's about more than just not going to work; it involves complex and wide-ranging logistical question, from how to support the strikers (otherwise corps can just wait you out) to how to decide on a single list of demands.

The very real threats you describe are what make outspoken union advocates awesome and brave people that we should all look up to, and it's why we all have a responsibility to express solidarity and never cross a picket line. Together we bargain; alone we beg!

[-] glimse@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

The reasoning you described can be summed up very simply: UAW doesn't want to strike, they want changes. And they hope the threat alone is enough to get them.

this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
577 points (99.0% liked)

Work Reform

9856 readers
81 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS