2d ago

What conditions would you require to start general striking?

I know for many people the main condition is that their work wouldn't be cool with it so would lose income or threaten job. in union strikes, a huge part of our dues goes towards a strike fund to make sure people get income when striking so i think i would like to see some crowd funding general strike fund or some sort of union type thing but anyone in working class can join & point of it is to organize and fund assistance, legal help, anti-retaliation.

I'd be down to general strike though, some massive positive changes in history have been via general striking since wealthy class freaks out.

what do y'all think?

You're viewing a single thread.

46 comments

Having a union to begin with.
Folks that stop by this post and don’t have a union, think about this. The reason you have the default concern about your job security, the reason you have inequality in the workplace and the reason “wage-slave” is a term, is because you, your peers, and your predecessors were propagandized away from unions or any form of worker solidarity.
Some of you might say, “but if I even talk about a union with co-workers, I’m fired”, or, “I read about how Walmart would rather stop having a butcher shop than let them unionize”. I say that’s exactly why you need one.
- To bring this more in-line with OP's question:
  What if we had a general union that represented all workers generally and could provide support for things like general strikes?
  Maybe make it a parent body made up of unionized/federated unions specific to each trade/discipline.
  Something like the IWW or the AFL-CIO, but that represents all people by default. I'd argue that such a body could/should replace most of what the government does, and then membership is just citizenship. This could guarantee several worker's rights within the union and enshrine democratic principles/practices.
  
  In a well functioning society, that would be called the government.
  
  Kinda my point, right?
  Make the government represent the people in bargaining contracts.
  Local governments.
  They then manage the labor market to make it easy for people to get jobs.
  Make labor representatives funded by taxes an elected position to bargain for you against an employer.
  Like a public defender.
  In a court, if necessary.
  Where our constitutional rights apply.
  
  There is precedent for this: a contract for the sale of real estate in the state of NY requires a lawyer with a license to make sure that the deal is fair after some unfortunate abuses of the past.
  Why can't a contract for the sale of labor require a representative? And an organizing body? That's elected from a given worker pool? Paid via taxes (dues)?
- Unions have earned their bad reputation in the US. Union management is more evil that corporate management, and corporate management is not very good.
  Yes corporate management isn't always good, but they are not nearly as bad as union management makes them out to be. Meanwhile I've seen the sillyness that unions enforce (I can't plug in a network cable - that is a union job) and I want nothing to do with them. Unions need to clean up their own act before trying to get me to join. I'm not against unions, but the way they work in the US I'm very against. Start looking in the mirror and seeing what the real world is like and not your strawman vision of what you think my issues are!
  Unions in other countries work very different. If you live in Europe, you have no idea what unions in the US are like, so stop.
  
  Back all this bullshit up with cited sources or fuck off with this concept that doesn't even pass the smell test.
  
  Perfect evidence here. People in unions refuse to acknowledge all the problems outsiders have with unions. My observations are just invalid and insulted.
  One more reason I want nothing to do with unions.
  
  He literally asked for something to back up your statements, he's literally acknowledging your viewpoint and would be open to it if you were able to cite any references. If you want "outsiders" to listen to you, you have a responsibility to give them a reason to.
  There, no insults, just a suggestion that if you want discourse, you need to have something beyond your opinion to back it up.
  
  I've been in offices where I was told look for the union guy before plugging my network cable, don't do it when he was looking.
  There is a constant stream of hate on corporate management here, most of it without any evidence given. I want some evidence in return. Not that it exists, but that it is anywhere near as bad as people are saying.
  
  Maybe you have just worked in really well managed places?
  
  I've worked in a number of places. Some better managed than others. The fact that I see this variation is why union "management is always bad" talking points just turn me off.
  
  Cos most management, in my experience, is authoritarian and gets results by shouting.
  You do realise that management is there to get the most from you with the least expenditure?
  
  Your experience is different than mine then. I suggest you get out and find other places where management isn't so bad.
  
  Yeah, how dare people ask you for [checks notes] evidence of radical claims. What is the world coming to?
  
  Well hey I'm not in a union and I'll insult you too, fish lips.
  
  Be the change that you want to see. You point out all these things they are doing wrong, have you tried running for a union leadership position and changing the things you see they are doing wrong?
  
  I'm not in a union. Once in a while unions try to convince me I should organize, but everything I see says if I vote to organize it will not be a new union that I could have power in. Instead I will be forced into one of the large existing unions that I will be a tiny player in and unable to get a high leadership position in.
  Besides, I'm an engineer. I can lead people, but that isn't what I want to do. Thus even if I could run for a leadership position I find that a thankless job that I don't want. I have only so much time on earth and so I have to choose what I spend my time on.
  
  Besides, I'm an engineer.
  Are you? Are you actually a Professional Engineer who is in a position of authority within the business and has the leverage of a license stamp to compensate for the lack of a union? Or are you a glorified technician who, like so many other "engineers," absolutely needs a union but doesn't believe it because your engineering degree inflates your sense of rugged individualism?
  
  I am not legally a professional engineer. However I do have a degree from my universities school of engineering. I could go through the paperwork to get that professional engineer certification, it just hasn't been a useful thing for me to do. (professional engineer doesn't really cover computer science topics even though my code can kill just as much as a bridge collapsing could kill)
  
  I can respect some aspects of that. Not everyone is meant to or even cut out to lead. Good on you for realizing that about yourself.
  What I don't understand is how you see the obvious benefits of a union, and how a small portion of your pay check could go a long way to making your own benefits better including increasing your overall pay so that union due are less of a burden on your budget. No one said you had to be in charge. Find one other person who agrees that unions can be/do better and get them to run, because not ever person out there wants to be a greedy mob boss style union leader. A union is about to be the only thing standing between you, and that CEO thinking you're little more than slave labor, because this administration is dismantling as many consumer and worker protections as it can.
  
  What I don't understand is why you don't see the obvious downsides of unions. The small cost to my paycheck is nothing. However the focus on seniority over objective who is better at their job, and refusing to allow tracking metrics (I legally probably shouldn't even say that much about the contract I'm thinking of: to those who want evidence I'm not allowed to give it) about he is better has always bothered me.
  The union is not the only thing standing between me and the CEO. I can find a new job. I have done it before. Overall I find my company treats me well - not perfect, but better than other places I've worked. My power to walk away and find a new job gives me a lot more power than the union would. (in fact in many unions I'd have less power because then I'd be required to work only for that union and so if the union has a mod boss I can't do anything about it)
  
  Can you point to anything/situation that would require you work only for that union. Because I can't think of one and frankly I don't think you know what you're talking about with that claim. If you are talking about hiring halls then your claim is false. You do not have to be a union member to use a hiring hall.
  
  More power to yah, my friend. I imagine you can only point to anecdotal evidence to support any of your claims. Let me know if you need me to do some research for you on all the studies that show unions have an overall positive effect for all it's members, and non members who just complain. I get that some union leadership might suck, but I would point you back to the first post where maybe you should do something about it.
  I won't even make you pay dues for the first link
  https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being/
  
  How do you think unions in other countries gained the reputation and power that they have? Being in a union is the first step to have a better union.

46 comments