Hacker News Reader

Comment by beecafe | Hacker News Reader

The point of strikes is to cause economic disruption. Congress preventing them from exercising that power means there's no way for them to get their demands met. The Republicans wouldn't have been able to block it if the rail workers were allowed to express their power.

View on HN

Let me know when you volunteer to lose your job, run out of food, and have no drinking water because the freight has stopped running. That's reality for the vast majority of Americans.

I wish the workers had gotten a better deal, but I'm damn happy the strike didn't happen, because the damage would have been enormous.

I mean, better that in the short term than the long term of luck being the determining factor in having a few hundreds of thousands of tons of poison being dumped into my city or not.

I'd rather have to suffer an extended period of hardship than the status quo of "Your corporate overlords own your soul and any attempt to claw back what little power you can to try and balance this stupidity will be made a literal fucking crime"

Every single employee who gains a little power to use in negotiations with their employer should be fought for, by all of us. Fucking solidarity.

Sure, I'd volunteer. What, you're too weak to do so? I guarantee that there many who are in a worse position than you who would gladly flight. And for those who can't, it is your responsibility to.

Congress does not REALLY prevent it from happening. The strikers themselves prevent it from happening.

Hmm? They will start stressing union bosses, and give out harsh fines and penalties if they continue to strike after congress steps in

Yeah but if the current framework does not support, the next step is pretty obvious. Check how unions truly fought back in the day.

BTW same reason I believe the SWE "unions" people advocate here are going to be a laughing stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com