zlacker

>>hhs+(OP)
Glad to see this from Amazon, although I see it heading off the inevitable. Wouldn't this be the most powerful moment for employees in 'essential' services to engage in worker strikes? Is there any legal precedent for what governments would do?

With all this war rhetoric thrown around, it seems a reasonable jump to declare essential workers troops on the frontline deserving of what we give other troops (free health care, pension, heavily subsidized secondary education)

>>bdefor+T7
As Calvin Coolidge said "there is no right to strike against the public safety." People can organize all they want, but they can't conspire to harm people, holding lives up as not-that-metaphorical hostages in a negotiation. It's the idea of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Putting people's lives in danger for literal personal profit would be a sure-fire way to turn people against unionization.

>>c3534l+9L
Interesting. What about “strike for the public safety”?

Performing a strike to achieve a goal for public safety, such as, when the government of a city decided, against public opinion, not to close the border even when bordering a large country with lots of infected patients, some essential workers decided to go on strike to demand the close of the border?

Even more interestingly, if the essential workers are themselves public safety workers, hence their strike would put some people in risks, while hoping for saving more people when the demands are met---real life Trolley problem.

Not hypothetical, I have an actual case in mind.