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?
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.
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)
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
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.
General popular buy in.
If 5% of the country tries to strike it’s just going to get 5% of people fired with a poisoned reference on their CV, and get a story on page 3 of a billionaire owned newspaper. In the US right now 45% of the country would actively oppose a general strike, 30% would be oblivious to it happening until they got to work that day and wondered why Chris and Pat aren’t in, and 20% would decline for fear of reprisal (sans union protection).
If 5% of all US workers striked, it would be the largest strike in US history by magnitudes. This says there are 170m workers in the US, which would put 5% at 8.5m. The largest single strike seems to be the 1946 steel strike which consisted of 800,000. 5% of everyone striking would not be third page news, and it would do damage to the oligarchs. I would absolutely consider 5% to be generalpopulace buy-in. Youre right half the country would actively oppose it, though.
For it to be legal.
Yes, despite having fairly good workers rights, general and solidarity strikes are illegal in Germany. It’s so stupid.
I don’t have a safety net and I’m employed well above where my qualifications on paper would get me hired in a new position so if I lose this job I’ll most likely be set back by years. Sorry but I’m not joining a strike. Good luck to anyone who does but I will almost certainly be fucked if I do. I’d contribute in other ways if there are any suggestions.
A decent plan with actionable goals and a strategy that will actually work.
Not working or buying something on one day doesn’t do shit
It’s really weird to strike at my job, because I work at a non-profit who genuinely does great work to help students go to college and university. Probably the worst part about our program is that some of the companies we take money from are shitty, but it’s hard to be mad spending evil money on educating students. They also give me an incredibly generous PTO program, meaning even if I don’t come into work for a day to strike, I’ll still get paid for the day, which seems antithetical to the purpose.
I’m still not gonna come into work on March 14th, and maybe if I can get all my coworkers to do the same it’ll still feel like a strike, but it’s just a weird situation.
Student and worker unions striking together would build momentum for non union workers to strike, which is exactly why wealthy politicians outlawed it in 1947. They literally outlawed worker solidarity under Taft Hartley because it’s obviously effective. You don’t need more than 5-10% of the workforce striking before things grind to a halt, especially if you are coordinating along logistics and supply chains.
Look at effective recent strikes like UAW, start with several strikes across critical supply chains, and when management engages in bad faith negotiations keep adding more strikes.
Honestly? With how much money the rich has, a major prerequisite for me would be a massive wealth tax on their current fund.
With how much money most of the companies that are problem children today have, a general strike isn’t effective.
Take amazon for example, it has a yearly operating expense of 569B, and has a current operating debt of 52B (or a total of 338B in liabilities)
It keeps around 101B cash on hand in immediate withdrawable assets, and has a total of 624B in total assets.
Assuming the total yearly expenses can be easily dividable by 12(it likely couldn’t) and without knowing how much money they end up saving in salary due to the strike, In order for a strike to really hurt Amazon, you would need to strike for almost 3 months before you even start eating into it’s non-immediate withdrawal assets.
How many people do you know that has 3 months worth of salary stored up for a thing like this? I don’t know many.
A union /might/ have solved that situation but, that money doesn’t just appear out of thin air, its collected via dues, the same dues that the everyday person fights against, and if you don’t /currently/ have a union, you won’t have the funds built up.
Our local teachers union has that issue currently. They ruled that the union MUST accept people into it without paying the union fees, which more or less made it so the teachers union is all bark no bite as it couldn’t afford a general strike as a result of it, because they would need to pay everyone, including the people who aren’t actively contributing back.
Not working a BS job at a company of like 5 people would probably make a strike seem more meaningful. If I had income to spare, it would probably make more sense to fund someone else to strike at a major company or who does more meaningful work than for myself to strike.
It was easier as a student, but massive labour reform would be enough for me.
For me, all it’d take is for user @BillWigly@kbin.earth to suggest we strike.
Or anyone, really.
