Comment on The studios thought they could handle a strike. They might end up sparking a revolution

• scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Making any strike illegal is so weird to me, like it goes against the idea of a strike in my mind. Isn’t the entire point that they don’t want you to do it, it’s the power a group of people have over the tiny elite?

  source

  • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think this article puts it decently:

    5) Is there such a thing as an illegal strike?

    Absolutely, though a more accurate term is “unprotected.”

    Basically, it’s not necessarily that workers would be criminally charged for participating in such strikes per se, but that the law doesn’t protect them from being retaliated against in other ways. For example, sit-in strikes don’t supersede property owners’ rights to have people removed for trespassing.

    That said, IMO the Taft-Hartley Act’s prohibition on secondary strikes should absolutely be considered unconstitutional under the 1^st^ Amendment right to freedom of association.

    source

    • scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thank you, this explanation makes the most sense to me

      source
  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I can see how it can be potentially problematic. For example, If I’m the owner of a shipping company what leverage do I have over Hollywood execs to pay writers and actors better?

    source

    • nac82@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The same powers all capitalists use over forces of governing.

      By this logic, regulatory captured is impossible because an industry is only capable of influencing under its sphere. Government being influenced by capitalism is a direct proof of capitalists influence outside of their sphere of control.

      The power of the people is unity to force the wealthy to act.

      source

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        So to apply what you’re saying to my example: the shipping capitalist will use their lobbying influence to ”persuade” lawmakers to apply pressure on Hollywood executives to settle?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • MajorTom@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The two are unrelated, just happening confidently AFAIK. That said, the purpose of a widespread strike is to make people that would normally be unaffected pay attention. Grinding the economy to a halt forces action, at least in theory.

      source
    • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I can see how it can be potentially problematic. For example, If I’m the owner of a shipping company what leverage do I have over Hollywood execs to pay writers and actors better?

      Who cares? That’s the shipping company execs’ problem, not the workers’. More importantly, “potentially problematic” is far below the standard necessary to justify limiting workers 1^st^ Amendment freedom of association!

      source

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Fair enough

        source
    • Zorque@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Business ties, lobbying ability, probably things I can't think of because it's not my area of expertise.

      The entire world is interconnected in one way or another, even those tribes that have sealed themselves away from modern societies are affected by climate change or even just local environmental changes. Thinking that anyone could be wholly independent from anyone else is very shortsighted thinking.

      source
  • LazaroFilm@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    @scrubbles In France if the CGT union is on strike that’s the entire country that collapses and thousands in the streets. Let’s not even talk about farmers, truckers or trains strikes. In the US, it’s 12 dudes in shorts with signs walking on a deserted sidewalk.

    @psychothumbs @itsJoelle @NOT_RICK

    source
• itsJoelle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I was mistaken. They just so happen to also be striking here soon.

  source