Contracts that prevent you from striking should be illegal.
That's it. That's the toot.
@blake but that interferes with my right to sell my labor as I see fit.
We should be promoting workers rights IMO, not imposing other people's opinions on workers like that.
@volkris@qoto.org You want to put unnecessary, unhelpful restrictions on yourself? This is about worker's rights, specifically about protecting their right to strike.
@blake if I want to do it it's because I get some benefit from doing it, a benefit of my labor that you would be taking away through that restriction.
And if I don't want to do it then it's moot.
But either way, you're talking about interfering with my ability to gain from my own labor, and it's pretty Orwellian to interfere with my right to trade on my labor while claiming you are protecting the right that you are directly interfering with.
@ahoyboyhoy it's not about a right to strike, though.That's not the question on the table. It's about whether or not to block a worker from contracting his labor under terms he sees fit and beneficial.
The proposal is to outlaw the worker's ability to agree not to strike when an employer offers terms favorable to the worker, and so using law to remove that agency from the worker.
@ahoyboyhoy @blake didn't mention a particular law, but rather a general want for there to be a law against employment agreements he didn't like.
So it's not about my right to strike. It's about my right to benefit from my labor even in ways that Blake doesn't personally agree with.
He'd use state power to impose his opinions on workers' rights to sign agreements that benefit them.
@volkris @blake how does Blake's right to strike interfere with your right to work?