Can everyone just quit, and require that to be hired back their demands are met? Or is their pension system scummy in that pension only counts based on continuous employment?
From an admittedly ignorant perspective, I don’t understand strikes; I don’t understand why collectivized workers don’t group quit instead of staying home and submitting demands through a rep. It’s like how companies mass fire, and then offer jobs back at lower pay. Uno reverse. Fascist laws easily target employees on strike like we saw with Reagan, but it would be extremely difficult to enact laws targeting people who don’t even work for some company any more. And the reps can be bought out to take an offer on behalf of members anyway.
Sometimes strikes have better worker protections than mass quitting.
Also, usually besides “not doing the work”, strikes usually involve engaging in some practices (e.g. picket lines) to prevent or inhibit anyone else from “doing the work”. That’s not true of mass quitting.
I’ve never been in a position where I could earn a pension. But, vestment of employer contributions to my 401k used to be contingent on years of continuous employment. Quitting and being rehired would have resulted in losing all funds that hadn’t yet vested.
But, yes, mass quitting is an option, particularly when legal and union protections are little or non-existent.
if the strikers had backbone (and proper support from the community) yes. hiring everyone back on and preventing retribution is the first or second demand from any halfway decent labor strike.
this is what the NALC did back in the 70’s…but they’re a shadow of their former selves ever since betraying their brothers in 2008
Would you show up to work knowing you will not get paid?
If they don’t, they lose their pension. Right now it’s an investment in ever retiring.
Can everyone just quit, and require that to be hired back their demands are met? Or is their pension system scummy in that pension only counts based on continuous employment?
From an admittedly ignorant perspective, I don’t understand strikes; I don’t understand why collectivized workers don’t group quit instead of staying home and submitting demands through a rep. It’s like how companies mass fire, and then offer jobs back at lower pay. Uno reverse. Fascist laws easily target employees on strike like we saw with Reagan, but it would be extremely difficult to enact laws targeting people who don’t even work for some company any more. And the reps can be bought out to take an offer on behalf of members anyway.
Sometimes strikes have better worker protections than mass quitting.
Also, usually besides “not doing the work”, strikes usually involve engaging in some practices (e.g. picket lines) to prevent or inhibit anyone else from “doing the work”. That’s not true of mass quitting.
I’ve never been in a position where I could earn a pension. But, vestment of employer contributions to my 401k used to be contingent on years of continuous employment. Quitting and being rehired would have resulted in losing all funds that hadn’t yet vested.
But, yes, mass quitting is an option, particularly when legal and union protections are little or non-existent.
if the strikers had backbone (and proper support from the community) yes. hiring everyone back on and preventing retribution is the first or second demand from any halfway decent labor strike.
this is what the NALC did back in the 70’s…but they’re a shadow of their former selves ever since betraying their brothers in 2008