Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nkelsch wrote:
But that says if the employees are replaced, they are discharged. That means fired to me.

And a strike has to be part of collective bargaining, not blue flu. Nothing I have seen shows the Walmart "strike" to be part of a legal strike. (Like everything someone can contest in court, but the law has minimal teeth for non-unionized protection, especially for unorganized blue flu strikes ion at will states)

Yeah, and it's worth pointing out that even within union action there's pretty strict rules on what constitutes legal strike action. Most of those exist for good reason to prevent exploitative strike action, but the net effect is that union power is a lot less than most people realise.

I actually read an interesting piece from a libertarian writer the other day, arguing that if unions want to recover from their constantly declining member numbers, they should support a gloves off approach to industrial relations. Drop the laws controlling pay and conditions, and drop the laws on strike action and other employee remedies. Let employers and collective workers hash out what they can and let the chips fall where they may.

It was, like all libertarian stuff, essentially pretty silly, but thought provoking all the same.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Weren't the only ones dismissed the one too irresponsible to let someone know they were going to be missing work to strike? AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. It is not, however, illegal to fire someone for poor attendance.

Are you legally required to give notice that you will be striking?

Over here, yes you are, no idea about the US. You have a right to strike and no employer can take any action against you for exercising that right, but you have to give a strike notice to let your employer know when you are on strike. Otherwise you would just be skipping work...

My wife's union have told her and her colleagues that they do not need to give notice that they are striking and that the place she should not ask her if she is striking.

If you are part of a union then you don't have to deliver a strike notice because the union will deliver it for its members, if you are not in a union you'll have to deliver the strike notice and you are correct that the employer cannot ask whether a particular employee if he is going to go on strike or not.

Again, this is how the law works over here, particular details are going to vary from one country to the other, and even more from corrupt socialist Europe to the capitalist utopia of USA. (I'm just joking in case anyone doesn't notice)

In the UK, unions have to ballot their members by post and gain a plurality in favour of strike action. They must also give the employer a week's notice of their intention to run a ballot.

feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait, how do the biggest and strongest not rule now?

Well, is Hulk Hogan the President of the World? The answer to my question is the answer to your question.

The guy with 10,000 nuke warheads doesn't control the world if he really wants to?

The strongest guy in the world can raze continents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
AFAIK it's illegal to fire someone for striking. .

..... I totally did not know that.

Only if its a legal strike...

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

2. Declaring a federal minimum is outside the scope of power for the federal government; if anything, that authority should fall to the individual state and perhaps even local municipalities.

The existing policies in your country seem to contradict that, what with there being a federal minimum wage and all.

To clarify: a federal minimum wage (whether a good idea or not) is squarely within the power of the government. It's in the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 8.) The relative value of such an action is an issue that is open to debate.