• ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    3 days ago

    This came up in another thread and I am surprised it is not as well known: General strikes are illegal in the United States since 1947’s Taft-Hartley Act.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act

    Attempts to organize and exert political and economic influence have to do so under the parameters of that act. Unions can’t support these things openly or officially without violating the act. So these things have to be called something other than a general strike to avoid persecution. They’re essentislly stripped of major legitimizing and organizing organ: labor unions, by default.

    • stickly@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 days ago

      Not a lawyer but I wonder how much teeth that law has. The GOP/Trump has put on a clinic on how to legally gum up the wheels of justice, it seems like unions could try the same. Delay, argue technicalities, appeal, rise, repeat…

      For example: if you spend 2 months in court arguing about who organized what and what they’re technically striking for, damage could still be done even with the strike broken up. Multiply that by a few major unions and it adds up.

      You can already see a similar plan coming together with UAWs 2028 contact expiration plan. Its not a general strike, there’s just coincidentally a lot of strikes at once.

      Of course there’s a stricter set of laws and leeway when you’re not a corrupt oligarch so it wouldn’t work. But it’s fun to think about…

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        3 days ago

        Its not a general strike, there’s just coincidentally a lot of strikes at once.

        Exactly. These are the hoops organized labor has to jump through to get even a footing.

        Meanwhile compare what the billionaire class is able to use for their signaling.