Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ArchaicArchetype t1_j8jhkv0 wrote

Striking is a fundamental worker's right as is collective bargaining.

Pushing against these rights directly led to the toxic chemical spill in Ohio.

You cannot make the problems of a system go away by stripping away worker's rights. All you will do is make it illegal for them to protest when our children or they as workers are being mistreated.

119

Daily_the_Project21 t1_j8nosih wrote

>Pushing against these rights directly led to the toxic chemical spill in Ohio.

This isn't true and there's no evidence.

I know I'm going to be downvoted to oblivion, but if any of you can give me any evidence, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

−2

Splime t1_j8o8b7h wrote

You're not wrong, but the unions have been pointing to a lot of problems in the railroad industry that may have led to this specific incident. Respecting union rights would be a half measure - really the issue is the major railroads are particularly awful at actually running a railroad (not just this incident, but the whole "precision scheduled railroading" implementation), and should probably be nationalized.

1

tubatackle t1_j8l1vdx wrote

Serious question, can't they just campaign for elected officials who will change things in their favor? Teacher strikes are hard on families. Wouldn't the healthier option be to rely on democratic means of change? Or fixing whatever is impeding democracy from working?

−21

pelican_chorus t1_j8l297v wrote

Unions generally do campaign for elected officials. However, that's not a magic wand. The person might not get elected, and they are also not all-powerful.

The ability to strike is a rarely-used tool that is only done when the union feels they have no alternative. It isn't used willy-nilly, or they'd quickly lose all public support, and without public support they have nothing.

24

tubatackle t1_j8l794n wrote

Police unions have no public support and they do whatever they want.

−9

BlaineTog t1_j8lbsqe wrote

They have had tremendous public support for decades. All that, "tough on crime," BS gives the police unions a ton of leverage.

11

6corsican6lily6 t1_j8lmdr9 wrote

Teacher strikes are hard on families? Do you know how hard teacher wages are on teachers? That was a very self centered take and you need to understand that teachers and schools are not your babysitters.

11

tubatackle t1_j8ncyki wrote

Whether or not teachers should be payed more (they should) isn't the point. The question is should public servants be able to withhold critical services as leverage for higher wages, I say no.

−5

6corsican6lily6 t1_j8p6sa5 wrote

Jfc, you reek of entitlement

1

tubatackle t1_j8q6zvl wrote

Not really, imagine you are a single parent and school doesn't open. Your boss doesn't care about the strike so you need to find childcare on short notice or risk losing your income.

0

6corsican6lily6 t1_j8qdas2 wrote

You’re only proving my point - you see teachers as babysitters, and therefore, below you. Your problem isn’t with teachers, it’s with the lack of accessible and affordable child care in this country, and a misplaced sense of superiority. You’ve somehow convinced yourself that teachers are to blame for the inflexibility of your own working conditions. And that if they fight for their own equity and it causes you an inconvenience, well that’s just not fair to you because you have it tough too. Based on what you have described about your working conditions, you have a lot more in common with teachers struggles than you’re willing to come to terms with. Once you understand praxis, you’ll develop some class consciousness and understand why supporting teacher and other worker strikes benefits everyone.

1

420trashcan t1_j8mgud1 wrote

Striking is a fundamental, foundational part of Democracy and Republican government dating all the way back to the Pre-empire Roman Republic.

5