Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?
Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?
Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, and they otherwise generally care about the well-being of their patients. Also, it is illegal to strike at a health care facility without first giving 10-days notice (to plan how to continue care). I’ve talked to residents organizing at Mass General Brigham, and (though they aren’t planning a strike) my vague understanding is that the logistics of striking in health care are targeted more at paperwork rather than holding up care (e.g. provide the care but don’t sign the notes so billing can’t commence).
I recommend reading more about how organizing in health care works - it’s complex, very topical these days, and I think it’ll show you that folks tend to care for one another. Too easy for Silicon Valley edge-case thinkers to reach for ad absurdum armchair arguments like “what if a doctor let their patient die on the operating table because they want more money” - that’s not where their heads are at at all.
It’s also incredibly important that quality of life improves for health care workers. Med students are 3x more likely to die by suicide than the general population.
Even the NLRB states that a strike may be considered unlawful if it deprives company owners of their property. Timing the strike to intentionally destroy company trucks seems to go far beyond the act of the organized withholding of human labor.
Like, what’s the useful takeaway from the comparison? Cement getting left in a truck is like losing a loved one? Really? Striking workers performing something like sabotage is similar to pre-meditated murder? Are these useful comparisons? I don’t think so.
Okay, consider this scenario instead: you're getting an addition put on your house. Right after ripping the old roof off, the workers all go on strike, letting your house fill up with rain and snow.
If I’m employing them directly, I doubt there would be reason for a strike - what are they striking against? I don’t have a construction company. They’re either doing the work as contractors, and I’ll pay for it, or they aren’t doing the work, and they don’t get paid. IANAL, but I doubt it’s considered a strike if contractors skip a job or abandon a job midway through. Also, it’s important to foster a good relationship with your contractors and to make sure both parties agree they’re benefiting from the business relationship. That’s just simple good business.
If they are under someone else’s employ, the comparison doesn’t add up - the cement-in-truck didn’t cause substantial damages to the customer. (Maybe delayed schedule? I don’t know the details of the case.) What you are describing harms the customer directly. Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer. Rather more often than not they’re seeking to change the terms of their employment to benefit the customer, whether that’s more staffing, more safety, or more manageable hours to provide better service. These are folks working closest to the customer touchpoints, and I’m inclined to trust their knowledge of customer service more than management’s.
Does that make sense?
While they might say that, actions speak louder than words, and I as a customer have been inconvenienced a lot by strikes, e.g., when my car sat in the shop for over 2 months because it needed a part that ran out of stock and a UAW strike delayed any more of from getting made.
Regardless as https://www.eater.com/23575014/supreme-court-union-case-glac... point's out: in a lot of jobs prep is a required part of the job, so either you get fired for not doing your job or you get sued for losses from the strike.
If the employees here (and in the OP) did the same, they could start the strike by the end of one workday, so that no food/cement would be wasted as it it was never prepared.
Is this not possible in the US? Or is this a case of increasing one-uppance as the relationship between companies and employees is _that bad_?
The latter. America is a low trust, high conflict society. You can argue about “who shot first” but labor relations in America has often escalated to violence by both sides.
But, if you're providing healthcare to an old person to the tune of $50,000+ multiple times in a few short years, you could call them a GDP booster, no?
Strikes are intended to lose the company money in a very specific way - by a lack of labor. They are not intended to lose the company money by intentional destruction of property (nor should they be intended to do that)
Also, I think you're imagining a set of gentlemanly Marquis of Queensbury rules around strikes that don't exist. This isn't an elaborate ritual like the filibuster; labor dispute precedents are written in blood.
Another example to help you understand:
If I came into my office in the morning with a highly flammable liquid and put them where the sun shines in the afternoon, and then intentionally left for "striking" - the ensuing office fire would be property damage on my part.
Imagine if software developers took a service down for maintenance and then just decided to strike at that moment. Or maybe unloaded some servers from truck and then left them outside in rain.
But absolutely I agree that destroying millions of dollars in equipment and supplies is not equivalent to killing people, but the examples share an underlying principle of sabotage.
The same workers filling the trucks are the ones going on a strike. They can strike before starting filling exactly as well as after it.
Honestly, a ruling that doing sabotage during a strike consists on sabotage is completely mundane and expected. I don't think it would even appear on this site if the title was honest.