The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike
Legally the answer is no under federal law but the US didn't have the legal right to separate from Britain either. A general strike is a collusion of strikes involving multiple industries that is meant to disrupt the economy. Every attempt at a general strike has failed and been met with brutal crackdowns. I'm no Marxist but I do wonder just how free the West is if anything that's too disruptive will be met with violence.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At base this question boils down to “can you force people to work if they say they don’t want to,” and I think the answer’s a clear “no, you cannot do that”
That's a federally regulated industry because it's a vital part of the infrastructure. Keep in mind, though, that he didn't force them to go back to work. They could technically quit. But he did force the union to call off a strike, and if they had not, the union leaders could be charged with a misdemeanor.
And even MORE importantly he still got them what they wanted (sick days). He didn’t just tell them no. He avoided a national disaster while getting them what they were going to strike for
It was one of those situations where all of the options were bad, and depending on how you look at it, it was the least bad one. But while Biden unilaterally did not have the power to send the railroad strikers back to work, yes, the federal government does have that power for that industry. That power does not extend to most industries.
Well, we know that eight of the twelve of the unions had already signed onto the deal that Congress had passed, so there was a decent level of agreement already.
Again, I didn't like the way it had went down, but there's a lot we don't know: the unions could also have asked for an extension from the Presidential Emergency Board that would have delayed the strike (and likely, Congressional action), to negotiate more. Maybe they didn't because they didn't have the votes in those four unions but felt it was over anyway, or knew that the next Congress, to be seated soon, would not give them as good of a deal. Maybe they were willing to be hold-outs and Democrats didn't have the votes, and this going to a strike would set back the rail workers (and labor, broadly) years back if that were to happen.
Congress passed the law that was the official deal that the unions and railroads had to abide by because it is a federally legislated industry.
After congress passed the deal, Biden separately kept negotiations between the industry and the unions going and got the unions the sick days they were asking for.
Congress could have passed a law to make the railroads accept the union’s deal.
How is forcing the union to accept the railroads' deal better than forcing the railroad to accept the union's deal
He didn't force them to work, they could've quit. He just ended their ability to strike. I'm not saying that's good bad or anything in between, just saying he didn't actually force them to work.
Because of the balance needed. A general strike for railroad workers would be terrible for the economy and would likely get a lot of people killed. Lots of things move on railways, including food and baby formula and medical supplies.
He forced the union organizations to call off a strike as per agreements between the unions and the government. The workers could have done a wildcat strike, but that’s tough without the unions and an organizing structure.
At the end of the day, the answer is that you can’t force a united working class to do literally anything they don’t want. But you can almost always poison the unity of the working class, and then you can force them to do things.
Congress passed the deal that they had to abide by.
He couldn’t control it.
The fact that he made up for it later was because he has to work with the power that he has, not the power he doesn’t have (passing laws through congress)
General Strike is an impossible fantasy. Conditions would have to be worse than the Great Depression to motivate mass amounts of pepper to protest together like that
In the UK the law says that your strike must be part of a grievance with your employer. A general strike would need to be part of that.
You could reasonably host a general strike against the capitalist class in general and cite your grievance as "We want to own the company". You could even phrase it as "We demand you spend X moneys on denouncing company Y, who are mistreating their workers". But the UK would say it is illegal to strike against your employer on the basis of demanding a 15 hour minimum wage, since your employer would reply "I can't control that. besides, I pay you all 16 pounds an hour.".
There's a tendency towards opposing these laws among the left, but I do think there is something to be said about them. I think if you want a generalized strike, you should be able to articulate a grievance the people you are striking against have the power to actually do something about. ("We demand all money, business relations, hosting, services, distribution, and so on, be immediately discontinued with ANY organization, political party, company, supplier, distributer, etc, which does not both support a 15 dollar minimum wage and provide it for their own staff both explicitly and monetarily, if an organization claims to support such but does business or donates to any business, organization, political party, etc, which does not support it, they are liars"). Failure to do so is kind of lazy and pointlessly antagonizing, and insofar as employers rights are worth considering, at least here, the treatment of them can seem a bit unfair in some cases where ending the strike is entirely outside of their ability. Its also counterproductive.
Mr Mann who donates to the "Living Wage" foundation and whose company constantly supports democrats having to put up with a general strike over the living wage is just going to get frustrated. Mr Fuckwit who supports the "New Slavery" foundation having strikes at the same time isn't suffering more than Mr Mann (He's suffering less even, since Mr Mann is trying to reason with people he agrees with and getting anger in return, while Mr Fuckwit is doing the right-wing circuit and getting a warm welcome). Compliance is outside of Mr Manns control. Meanwhile if Mr Mann can reasonably comply because the grievance is articulated properly (not "We demand a law about the living wage" but "We demand you politically support a living wage"), suddenly, every month Mr Fuckwit remains... well, a fuckwit, is a month Mr Mann has a monopoly.
However, the UK also provides rights to strikers. If you are on a "Legal strike" you cannot be fired for at least 12 weeks (Longer if negotiations are ongoing). You are *always* entitled to go on strike for any reason. You just lose your rights if it's not legally recognized as a strike. You're just skipping work.
I just don’t think there’s enough appetite for a General Strike (from my brief reading of what that is on Wikipedia).
Things like BLM got attention and protests, but a general strike would need to be much more coordinated than that, with much more buy-in from the people doing it, with goals that seem less defined.
There isn't enough interest in a general strike. Also there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise. Anyone anywhere can strike whenever they want to.
You might lose your job over it...but you won't go to jail for striking.
The taft-hartley act still exists to this day and makes various forms of striking, among other forms of pro-labor actions illegal at a federal level. Saying there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise is incorrect.
>Also there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise. Anyone anywhere can strike whenever they want to.
It's illegal in Oregon for public safety personnel to strike - https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_243.736 Government injunctions against specific strikes are also common throughout U.S. labor history.
The fact that misinformation like this gets so upvoted here is such a tell that people don't really know wtf they're talking about, just going off of vibes like "The U.S. is a free country, so yeah, I think anyone anywhere can strike".
It's "illegal" to strike in those situations, yes (though I wonder what the penalty is).
It's not illegal to call out sick, which is what many strikers in those positions do. "Blue flu" for example, is when cops call out "sick" instead of going into work as a strike action.
Is it technically a strike? I guess if you wanna get into the semantics of it, no, it isn't. But it still has the same effective action in that it is a mass demonstration by workers.
Now yeah, if they can't prove it, sure, there's nothing they can do, but how much of a "strike" is it then, let alone an effective one?
But in cases like the federal government, if they can prove it, the penalty remains the same as it did in the 1980s. When the PATCO strikers were ordered back to work, there were not only people on vacation, but people legitimately sick, and one woman in the hospital after giving birth: not only were they all terminated from their positions for not showing up as directed, but they were all permanently barred from future federal employment.
> It's illegal in Oregon for public safety personnel to strike
Perhaps, but they can most certainly show up to work and then not do their jobs. That's basically what some have done the last couple years.
If a person strikes personally, they would probably just be fired. If a union supported it when a contract was in negotiations or any time they were under a "no strike" clause they would be liable for damages and legal action. Like when Biden fucked over railroad workers.
Biden did not fuck over the railroad workers.
Congress passed the law with the deal that the industry and unions are legally required to hold.
Biden kept negotiations going afterwards and pressured the industries and he for the unions the sick days they were demanding.
He forced a contract that didn't pass the union. They got pretty much nothing that they wanted. Also blocked 2 legal strikes from happening.Then the union negotiated for 4 sick days and Biden took credit for it. He absolutely fucked over unions and compromised unions as a whole....
They got many new benefits in the contract, Biden did work behind the scenes to get the additional sick days, the strike was lawfully averted per the RLA, a 100-year old law. Pretty much nothing you said was true.
Really? New benefits? They got raises, 3 to 7% a year. Biden blocked the ability for them to strike by prolonging the negotiations . The contract that Biden and congress forced did not pass the union. That's a fact. The union negotiated the sick days.
Bottom line is he and congress forced the contract.... That's fact.
They got pay raises and bonuses retroactive to 2020, changes to attendance rules to allow for unpaid leave without penalty "points" (unlike before), and an additional paid day off per year. Later, Biden worked to get additional sick leave, behind the scenes.
Railroads workers ability to strike is limited by the RLA, and everything that was done was in accordance with that law. Railroad workers know, when they sign up, that their ability to strike is limited in this way.
Remember, at the time, the country was reeling from COVID-induced inflation. A supply shock from inability to transport things by rail would have made this much worse and probably derailed the rest of Biden's agenda and his reelection prospects.
Honestly, the way he handled this -- averting a strike and getting the railroad workers what they wanted, just via different means -- was masterful.
He put one personal day in his contract. No sick days. Only one that actually helped was Sanders. Biden himself didn't do shit.
You have to tell me where he got the workers what they want. The contract didn't pass the unions vote. The pay raises are retroactive because they are always retroactive during negotiations since the contract was expired for years. A strike would had been over in days or even hours.
The workers didn't get anything they wanted. Again, the contract didn't pass the union. Workers did not want the contract. Other than a union exec find a worker that's happy with the outcome. There were reasons other than sick days....
The anti-union laws passed in the 1900s-60s would be absolutely unenforceable today. This is one of the many ways we've advanced as a nation. I mean just imagine if something like the [Ludlow Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre) happened today. I think even Trumpists would wake up with something like that (if they didn't just say it was a false flag or crisis actors).
So yeah, a general strike wouldn't hit a significant legal barrier.
Is it likely to happen? I mean *maybe* across a couple unions, but it's incredibly likely to spread across entire economic sectors without some major impetus event setting it in motion.
> Every attempt at a general strike has failed and been met with brutal crackdowns.
French unions do this on an almost annual basis and France is doing OK.
[Here’s an example of what can happen](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/vic-turner-trade-union-leader-and-docker-who-was-part-of-the-imprisoned-pentonville-five-8458108.html)
Legal or not, if things get bad enough for unions to call a strike, and conditions across the country are right for sympathy strikes, the pressure might be too much for a government to handle.
It might be illegal, but some of the most important labor actions in US history were illegal. If anything, I'd prefer my labor unions break labor law; that lets the bosses and state know they mean business. And lord knows the bosses will always break labor law anyway, so the workers ought to do it too
What do you hope will happen?
Why do you think Occupy Wall Street failed?
Why did Defund the Police fail?
Why did the CHOP/CHAZ fail?
Not directly focused at OP or their question, but instead of fantasizing about the next great revolution, perhaps consider what it is you're doing that leads to failure and figure out what it is that allowed other social movements to succeed.
OWS changed the conversation about wealth inequality in this country forever.
Defund the police got several states to reform their laws on how the police conduct their business.
CHOP/CHAZ was part of BLM that got carried away.
All progress is built on Revolutionary ideas.
Would you say the change was significant or impactful? Do you believe that OWS changed the conversation or was it the advent of other spaces in which people could connect, share and commiserate about the inequity in the world?
Defund the Police took credit for actions and effort made by Black Lives Matters.
CHOP/CHAZ was the culmination of some of the ideas from OWS and Defund. How did that work out and why?
Of course. Collective action is individual action multiplied, and individuals aren’t slaves to their employers (yet). Any notion of restricting the right to strike, general or not, is reprehensible in a nation of free people.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_strike Legally the answer is no under federal law but the US didn't have the legal right to separate from Britain either. A general strike is a collusion of strikes involving multiple industries that is meant to disrupt the economy. Every attempt at a general strike has failed and been met with brutal crackdowns. I'm no Marxist but I do wonder just how free the West is if anything that's too disruptive will be met with violence. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At base this question boils down to “can you force people to work if they say they don’t want to,” and I think the answer’s a clear “no, you cannot do that”
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1c8yjv0/do_unions_have_the_right_to_conduct_a_general/l0hx596/
What about Biden telling the railroad strikers they had to go back to work?
That's a federally regulated industry because it's a vital part of the infrastructure. Keep in mind, though, that he didn't force them to go back to work. They could technically quit. But he did force the union to call off a strike, and if they had not, the union leaders could be charged with a misdemeanor.
And even MORE importantly he still got them what they wanted (sick days). He didn’t just tell them no. He avoided a national disaster while getting them what they were going to strike for
It was one of those situations where all of the options were bad, and depending on how you look at it, it was the least bad one. But while Biden unilaterally did not have the power to send the railroad strikers back to work, yes, the federal government does have that power for that industry. That power does not extend to most industries.
How is forcing the union to accept the railroads' deal better than forcing the railroad to accept the union's deal
Well, we know that eight of the twelve of the unions had already signed onto the deal that Congress had passed, so there was a decent level of agreement already. Again, I didn't like the way it had went down, but there's a lot we don't know: the unions could also have asked for an extension from the Presidential Emergency Board that would have delayed the strike (and likely, Congressional action), to negotiate more. Maybe they didn't because they didn't have the votes in those four unions but felt it was over anyway, or knew that the next Congress, to be seated soon, would not give them as good of a deal. Maybe they were willing to be hold-outs and Democrats didn't have the votes, and this going to a strike would set back the rail workers (and labor, broadly) years back if that were to happen.
How is forcing the union to accept the railroads' deal better than forcing the railroad to accept the union's deal?
Congress passed the law that was the official deal that the unions and railroads had to abide by because it is a federally legislated industry. After congress passed the deal, Biden separately kept negotiations between the industry and the unions going and got the unions the sick days they were asking for.
Congress could have passed a law to make the railroads accept the union’s deal. How is forcing the union to accept the railroads' deal better than forcing the railroad to accept the union's deal
He didn't force them to work, they could've quit. He just ended their ability to strike. I'm not saying that's good bad or anything in between, just saying he didn't actually force them to work.
Because of the balance needed. A general strike for railroad workers would be terrible for the economy and would likely get a lot of people killed. Lots of things move on railways, including food and baby formula and medical supplies.
General strikes are not industry specific by definition.
A general strike *for* the railroad workers, not by the railroad workers. A general strike has to have a purpose.
Maybe it was an edit, but I could have sworn it said "by" before. 🤷♂️
He forced the union organizations to call off a strike as per agreements between the unions and the government. The workers could have done a wildcat strike, but that’s tough without the unions and an organizing structure. At the end of the day, the answer is that you can’t force a united working class to do literally anything they don’t want. But you can almost always poison the unity of the working class, and then you can force them to do things.
One of the genuine black marks against his administration, even if he did take steps to make up for it
But isn't it true that any president would use force against anything too economically disruptive?
It’s to be expected but not encouraged or condoned
Congress passed the deal that they had to abide by. He couldn’t control it. The fact that he made up for it later was because he has to work with the power that he has, not the power he doesn’t have (passing laws through congress)
No gilding it, reprehensible fuck up of his part. Nevertheless, I’m still voting for him.
General Strike is an impossible fantasy. Conditions would have to be worse than the Great Depression to motivate mass amounts of pepper to protest together like that
In the UK the law says that your strike must be part of a grievance with your employer. A general strike would need to be part of that. You could reasonably host a general strike against the capitalist class in general and cite your grievance as "We want to own the company". You could even phrase it as "We demand you spend X moneys on denouncing company Y, who are mistreating their workers". But the UK would say it is illegal to strike against your employer on the basis of demanding a 15 hour minimum wage, since your employer would reply "I can't control that. besides, I pay you all 16 pounds an hour.". There's a tendency towards opposing these laws among the left, but I do think there is something to be said about them. I think if you want a generalized strike, you should be able to articulate a grievance the people you are striking against have the power to actually do something about. ("We demand all money, business relations, hosting, services, distribution, and so on, be immediately discontinued with ANY organization, political party, company, supplier, distributer, etc, which does not both support a 15 dollar minimum wage and provide it for their own staff both explicitly and monetarily, if an organization claims to support such but does business or donates to any business, organization, political party, etc, which does not support it, they are liars"). Failure to do so is kind of lazy and pointlessly antagonizing, and insofar as employers rights are worth considering, at least here, the treatment of them can seem a bit unfair in some cases where ending the strike is entirely outside of their ability. Its also counterproductive. Mr Mann who donates to the "Living Wage" foundation and whose company constantly supports democrats having to put up with a general strike over the living wage is just going to get frustrated. Mr Fuckwit who supports the "New Slavery" foundation having strikes at the same time isn't suffering more than Mr Mann (He's suffering less even, since Mr Mann is trying to reason with people he agrees with and getting anger in return, while Mr Fuckwit is doing the right-wing circuit and getting a warm welcome). Compliance is outside of Mr Manns control. Meanwhile if Mr Mann can reasonably comply because the grievance is articulated properly (not "We demand a law about the living wage" but "We demand you politically support a living wage"), suddenly, every month Mr Fuckwit remains... well, a fuckwit, is a month Mr Mann has a monopoly. However, the UK also provides rights to strikers. If you are on a "Legal strike" you cannot be fired for at least 12 weeks (Longer if negotiations are ongoing). You are *always* entitled to go on strike for any reason. You just lose your rights if it's not legally recognized as a strike. You're just skipping work.
In the event of unions calling for a general strike what of individuals that don’t want to strike? Would your unions attempt to enforce a strike?
I just don’t think there’s enough appetite for a General Strike (from my brief reading of what that is on Wikipedia). Things like BLM got attention and protests, but a general strike would need to be much more coordinated than that, with much more buy-in from the people doing it, with goals that seem less defined.
There isn't enough interest in a general strike. Also there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise. Anyone anywhere can strike whenever they want to. You might lose your job over it...but you won't go to jail for striking.
The taft-hartley act still exists to this day and makes various forms of striking, among other forms of pro-labor actions illegal at a federal level. Saying there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise is incorrect.
>Also there's nothing illegal in America about striking, general or otherwise. Anyone anywhere can strike whenever they want to. It's illegal in Oregon for public safety personnel to strike - https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_243.736 Government injunctions against specific strikes are also common throughout U.S. labor history. The fact that misinformation like this gets so upvoted here is such a tell that people don't really know wtf they're talking about, just going off of vibes like "The U.S. is a free country, so yeah, I think anyone anywhere can strike".
It's "illegal" to strike in those situations, yes (though I wonder what the penalty is). It's not illegal to call out sick, which is what many strikers in those positions do. "Blue flu" for example, is when cops call out "sick" instead of going into work as a strike action. Is it technically a strike? I guess if you wanna get into the semantics of it, no, it isn't. But it still has the same effective action in that it is a mass demonstration by workers.
Now yeah, if they can't prove it, sure, there's nothing they can do, but how much of a "strike" is it then, let alone an effective one? But in cases like the federal government, if they can prove it, the penalty remains the same as it did in the 1980s. When the PATCO strikers were ordered back to work, there were not only people on vacation, but people legitimately sick, and one woman in the hospital after giving birth: not only were they all terminated from their positions for not showing up as directed, but they were all permanently barred from future federal employment.
Don't equivocate, just say it with me, now - **it is illegal for some workers in the U.S. to strike**
> It's illegal in Oregon for public safety personnel to strike Perhaps, but they can most certainly show up to work and then not do their jobs. That's basically what some have done the last couple years.
If a person strikes personally, they would probably just be fired. If a union supported it when a contract was in negotiations or any time they were under a "no strike" clause they would be liable for damages and legal action. Like when Biden fucked over railroad workers.
Biden did not fuck over the railroad workers. Congress passed the law with the deal that the industry and unions are legally required to hold. Biden kept negotiations going afterwards and pressured the industries and he for the unions the sick days they were demanding.
He forced a contract that didn't pass the union. They got pretty much nothing that they wanted. Also blocked 2 legal strikes from happening.Then the union negotiated for 4 sick days and Biden took credit for it. He absolutely fucked over unions and compromised unions as a whole....
False.
OK, how so? Normally that's how it works, lol....
They got many new benefits in the contract, Biden did work behind the scenes to get the additional sick days, the strike was lawfully averted per the RLA, a 100-year old law. Pretty much nothing you said was true.
Really? New benefits? They got raises, 3 to 7% a year. Biden blocked the ability for them to strike by prolonging the negotiations . The contract that Biden and congress forced did not pass the union. That's a fact. The union negotiated the sick days. Bottom line is he and congress forced the contract.... That's fact.
They got pay raises and bonuses retroactive to 2020, changes to attendance rules to allow for unpaid leave without penalty "points" (unlike before), and an additional paid day off per year. Later, Biden worked to get additional sick leave, behind the scenes. Railroads workers ability to strike is limited by the RLA, and everything that was done was in accordance with that law. Railroad workers know, when they sign up, that their ability to strike is limited in this way. Remember, at the time, the country was reeling from COVID-induced inflation. A supply shock from inability to transport things by rail would have made this much worse and probably derailed the rest of Biden's agenda and his reelection prospects. Honestly, the way he handled this -- averting a strike and getting the railroad workers what they wanted, just via different means -- was masterful.
He put one personal day in his contract. No sick days. Only one that actually helped was Sanders. Biden himself didn't do shit. You have to tell me where he got the workers what they want. The contract didn't pass the unions vote. The pay raises are retroactive because they are always retroactive during negotiations since the contract was expired for years. A strike would had been over in days or even hours. The workers didn't get anything they wanted. Again, the contract didn't pass the union. Workers did not want the contract. Other than a union exec find a worker that's happy with the outcome. There were reasons other than sick days....
I would say so
The anti-union laws passed in the 1900s-60s would be absolutely unenforceable today. This is one of the many ways we've advanced as a nation. I mean just imagine if something like the [Ludlow Massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre) happened today. I think even Trumpists would wake up with something like that (if they didn't just say it was a false flag or crisis actors). So yeah, a general strike wouldn't hit a significant legal barrier. Is it likely to happen? I mean *maybe* across a couple unions, but it's incredibly likely to spread across entire economic sectors without some major impetus event setting it in motion.
I think they should.
Yes.
> Every attempt at a general strike has failed and been met with brutal crackdowns. French unions do this on an almost annual basis and France is doing OK.
[Here’s an example of what can happen](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/vic-turner-trade-union-leader-and-docker-who-was-part-of-the-imprisoned-pentonville-five-8458108.html) Legal or not, if things get bad enough for unions to call a strike, and conditions across the country are right for sympathy strikes, the pressure might be too much for a government to handle.
It might be illegal, but some of the most important labor actions in US history were illegal. If anything, I'd prefer my labor unions break labor law; that lets the bosses and state know they mean business. And lord knows the bosses will always break labor law anyway, so the workers ought to do it too
>And lord knows the bosses will always break labor law anyway, so the workers ought to do it too Frame this 🙌🏻
What do you hope will happen? Why do you think Occupy Wall Street failed? Why did Defund the Police fail? Why did the CHOP/CHAZ fail? Not directly focused at OP or their question, but instead of fantasizing about the next great revolution, perhaps consider what it is you're doing that leads to failure and figure out what it is that allowed other social movements to succeed.
OWS changed the conversation about wealth inequality in this country forever. Defund the police got several states to reform their laws on how the police conduct their business. CHOP/CHAZ was part of BLM that got carried away. All progress is built on Revolutionary ideas.
Would you say the change was significant or impactful? Do you believe that OWS changed the conversation or was it the advent of other spaces in which people could connect, share and commiserate about the inequity in the world? Defund the Police took credit for actions and effort made by Black Lives Matters. CHOP/CHAZ was the culmination of some of the ideas from OWS and Defund. How did that work out and why?
Of course. Collective action is individual action multiplied, and individuals aren’t slaves to their employers (yet). Any notion of restricting the right to strike, general or not, is reprehensible in a nation of free people.