Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

>Striking hurts the company by definition. Whether the result is that concrete dries out, or fish go bad, or production servers are killed, or television production is halted doesn't matter.

Right, but there's an obvious difference between hurting the company through lost production, and hurting the company through lost production and deliberately engineering scenarios where work stoppages would cost maximum damage.

View on HN

No, the difference is not "obvious". In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages. Otherwise the laborer wouldn't command a competitive salary.

>In some industries and workplaces, there will always be damages due to work stoppages.

Please read my previous comment again. My claim isn't that there won't be damages due to work stoppages, just that there's a difference between damages caused as a side effect of work stoppages (eg. lost production), and work stoppages deliberately timed/engineered to cause max damage. A sibling comment[1] listed out other examples. Surely you see the difference between the scenarios listed and simply not showing up to work one day?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36178614

The union waited until the concrete trucks were poured/loaded/on their way to call the strike action, in order to exact intentional and maximal damage to the company.

That doesn't seem to me as normal business losses and striking to increase one's bargaining position. That borders on extortion.

I think the difference is "obvious".

Well, enjoy your reality.

Sure. I guess my reality is the one that's compatible with our laws.

Your laws, not ours.

I think we can tell who's the crazy one in this thread.

Crazy is ableist language.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com