Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.
Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.
Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn’t viable (or at least not with you in it).
There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don’t collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn’t work for air travel, but it works for other services.
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can’t strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public’s lives aren’t at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn’t wasn’t to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
Nah, they properly strike. The transporation company might try to get some replacements and shift around bus drivers that aren’t striking, but it usually means no or greatly reduced service.
But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you’d have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.
PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.
People should be allowed to complain most of the time the complaining helps bring attention to the protest. Otherwise most wouldn’t be known to the public.
Yes, but ads work on all our brains & most of the time the public opinions form in regards to articles such at these (ie anti-strike without knowing the reasons, and in turn in support to political parties holding such views).
Still it’s human af to complain just let people do it. It is annoying that you get into trouble because of something somebody else did or didn’t.
Especially if your power is limited for whatever way.
Personally I feel that if you enoy people to much they will side against you not for you. You kinda wanna get that balance going so the people with a lot of power are affected and those with little power aren’t.
Not literally any complaining (actual free speech & law protections apply), with the article as context - these are professionals acting from/on behalf of the company amplified by the money & media relations that company has (& possible political party relations).
So if I use my corp assets & relations to push out “well” precisely written points about how strikes are bad that is not at all comparable to a random person just being a bit frustrated & bitch about it. It’s deliberate, amplified, and solely for profit. And it leads to shit like when in developed countries govs/parlaments/presidents literally outlaw strikes (eg per sector even when it’s uncalled for), and the public doesn’t care.
Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.
Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.
Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn’t viable (or at least not with you in it).
There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don’t collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn’t work for air travel, but it works for other services.
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can’t strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public’s lives aren’t at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn’t wasn’t to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
Bus drivers strike all the time.
Yes, but usually they do it by other means as to not driving the bus (or they don’t drive the buses only for a limited time within the strike).
But countries differ a lot in regards what is basic infrastructure.
(Lol, typo, I meant doctors there, fixed.)
Nah, they properly strike. The transporation company might try to get some replacements and shift around bus drivers that aren’t striking, but it usually means no or greatly reduced service.
Yes, I know, in my county too.
But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you’d have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.
PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.
I absolutely want to know where I shop & who I vote for with my wallet (make profit for).
If that company is shitty to workers I’ll def try to avoid it.
Worker rights endeavours arent something to hide & dilute.
And yes, the employer needs to take into account customer view too (which they do).
People should be allowed to complain most of the time the complaining helps bring attention to the protest. Otherwise most wouldn’t be known to the public.
Yes, but ads work on all our brains & most of the time the public opinions form in regards to articles such at these (ie anti-strike without knowing the reasons, and in turn in support to political parties holding such views).
Still it’s human af to complain just let people do it. It is annoying that you get into trouble because of something somebody else did or didn’t. Especially if your power is limited for whatever way.
Personally I feel that if you enoy people to much they will side against you not for you. You kinda wanna get that balance going so the people with a lot of power are affected and those with little power aren’t.
Oh, no, no - that’s not what I meant at all!
Not literally any complaining (actual free speech & law protections apply), with the article as context - these are professionals acting from/on behalf of the company amplified by the money & media relations that company has (& possible political party relations).
So if I use my corp assets & relations to push out
“well”precisely written points about how strikes are bad that is not at all comparable to a random person just being a bit frustrated & bitch about it. It’s deliberate, amplified, and solely for profit. And it leads to shit like when in developed countries govs/parlaments/presidents literally outlaw strikes (eg per sector even when it’s uncalled for), and the public doesn’t care.But in reality, such people get new fancy boss positions 😉
Yes, true.
And in return held in higher regard even by average workers (perhaps not in that one specific company tho).