Anyone who says this is union busting.
Anyone who says this is union busting.
I hear it often from people, especially during the train strikes, often paired with them saying how they have bad working conditions and poor pay too. I generally try to help them understand that if you have union envy that’s a problem with your organisation, not theirs.
Collective action works. It has changed the world before, and will do again. There is a reason why all these employers are scared of it.
Because the term means real things that can be legally fought against. If you misuse the term and teach others to misuse it, it’s is more likely that other people will react incorrectly to challenges faced.
An easy way to undermine a movement is to look at people who are saying factually incorrect things to make their point and say “see? They don’t know what they’re talking about. Don’t listen to them”. And boom you’ve now made it easier to convince anyone on the fence to side against you.
It’s a really easy and common divide and conquer strategy.
If you want to help people while firing them up, then feed them the real information about union busting and how companies are actually doing it.
Saying that “strikes will cause disruption” is not union busting in any sense of the word.
It’s the consequence for shitty company practices and how workers get to be heard. It’s literally the point of a strike. It’s stating a fact.
The police are a joke.
The Police Union is one of the strongest unions in the country - so powerful, they protect their workers who literally commit murder.
Then these same folks protect millionaires and harass workers trying to unionize.
I believe that’s how the Japanese bus and/or train station workers strike.
There is no disruption to people getting to work, but a huge disruption to cash flow.
Only in Japan.
Doubt we can see it happening anywhere else because I can see in America, they can call that theft and a fireable offense. Can’t retaliate without a union either. And can’t be sued because the framing is still “stealing”, which the court system LOVE defending corps when the small guy steals.
There was a strike at my supermarket a few months ago, and some Nextdoor Karens’ went:
“During the start of the school season?!”
Like it’s not supposed to be CONVENIENT.
When I heard it was forced back my first thought was ‘well that doesn’t help for Xmas stuff anymore, so why not just make a proper deal? It seems like a lose lose for the government’. The prime time was already delayed so figure it out.
For the non Canadians I’m pretty sure they were working to make sure benefit cheques and such got through, so hopefully things like that weren’t delayed cause I do recognize how awful that can be for those that need it.
At first, it may look like its the fault of the people striking, but when you really think about it, they wouldn’t have to strike if they were paid fairly and have a safe work environment, so any issues caused by a strike is really just the employer’s fault.
TLDR: Blame their employers, not the people going on strike.
This is the rule for any strike, anywhere, in any industry. When people take a stand instead of taking a paycheck, it means their situation was literally unworkable.
There’s never been a strike where management was in the right.
Technically the point of the strike is to force the business to succeed.
It being disruptive literally benefits nobody, but the ball is in the business’ court to end it.