๐ณ๐ฑ
I will give Biden this... when he is lucid enough to actually know where he is and what day it is, he does pick a firm side... Granted, its all just for show and votes for him.. Now that I think about it... im not too fond of the fact that the president isnt trying to act more in the place of a neutral negotiator than a protestor.. but what a ya gonna do.
QT: https://bird.makeup/users/ap/statuses/1706737697971122283
@freemo It would be awesome to see a president standing with labour for the first time in history if said president had not just forced a bunch of railroad workers back to to the job for daring to strike over, get this, a week's worth of sick days every year. Guess the auto lobby got a little lax with its donations.
In the UK does a company have the ability to hire scabs when its workers strike?
If they do (and my stance is they should have the legal right) then I would be firmly against any politician being able to force them to go back to work.
If they do not have the right to hire scabs then I'd completely support the right to force them back to work but would oppose this particular dynamic overall.
@freemo thats a bit of a moot point in todays economy. These laborers arent shovelling gravel, they are conducting trains with huge and dangerous payloads, you cant just get someone off the street to do that regardless of whether you want to or not.
Well not entierly moot... If that is true, that replacements just dont exist, that means if they have a right to hire scabs it would cost them a LOT of money to find one (since there are few of them)... but they could still find them if they pay enough... This means there is a greater incentive for them to settle. Ideally it would be a privatized system whereby the govt requires them to operate and should they fail to do so they loose their license to be the operator... this would effectively force them to settle any strikes cause if they dont they loose their operating license, and thus would settle... all without courts forcing anyone.
@freemo courts cant force workers not to strike because their right to do so is enshrined in law. Congress can essentially vote to suspend that law with support of exec. branch. The point is that workers were exercising their right to bargain for better pay and safer working conditions and their demands were hardly extravagant, but the rail bosses know that its just cheaper to pay some politicians to literally suspend rule of law instead of just paying their workers better. It's easy to see why so many people are skeptical of free market capitalism when stuff like this happens.
@freemo yes and no. You cannot be fired for the explicit purpose that you participate in a legal strike or picket line, if the company wants it can disolve and lay off everyone at once but most billion dollar companies probably arent gonna do that. Companies can hire scabs if they want, but again where would the big three auto manufacturers find several thousand trained, non-union technicians just sitting on their hands waiting to scab out their already marketable skills? Literally the whole point of a union is so that a company wont just fire everyone who asks for a raise and keep those too scared to ask. When labour stands together they have more leverage to bargain with.
TL;DR:
I agree. The employees demands are reasonable, it sounds like they are. But my issue is with UK law, the correct solution here would not be to force the employees back to work but rather to erase the law that prevents companies from firing them. At that point let the strike resolve in whatever way it will.. TheBut the current law int he UK is immoral and thus leads to immoral compromises like forcing the strikers back to work. It was the right choice given the legal limitations as you explained them, but the correct choice would have instead to give the company threat of being fired may make the strikers settle… but likewise the threat of the expense of loosing everyone if they fire one might likewise be pressure preventing them from firing. This seems the only correct solution to me
Companies can hire scabs if they want, but again where would the big three auto manufacturers find several thousand trained, non-union technicians just sitting on their hands waiting to scab out their already marketable skills?
Offer them enough money they will leave their other jobs to work for you.. The point of a union is to make it so expensive and hard that is more economical to negotiate, as it should be.
You cannot be fired for the explicit purpose that you participate in a legal strike or picket line, if the company wants it can disolve and lay off everyone at once but most billion dollar companies probably arent gonna do that
If they cant fire someone for not showing up to work (regardless if its due to them striking or not), then I would agree with forcing them back to work… that said I dont think this is how it should be. The company should have the option to fire them (and face public back lash) for not doing their job.
Literally the whole point of a union is so that a company wont just fire everyone who asks for a raise and keep those too scared to ask. When labour stands together they have more leverage to bargain with.
I agree, but that shouldnt be as a legal restriction… The idea should be that firing everyone is just too damn expensive. And if they fire one of them everyone will quit their job because they agreed to do so. This negotiating pressure should be what stops them from firing people, not a law.
@Clementulus When workers exercise their right to strike, does the employer have the right and option to fire them and hire new employees, and second question, if not can they hire scabs as temporary workers to replace them?
I understand your other points.. but this is relevant for me to form an opinion. Obviously forcing striking workers to go back to work seems a violation of rights.. but then again if the company is not legally allowed to fire them or hire scabs thent hat is a violation of the rights of the company too... so i need this information to reconcile if i think such an action might be motivated, no matter how reasonable the ask... i mean you cant force the company to accept the terms ethically either, so yea...