There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don’t collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn’t work for air travel, but it works for other services.
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can’t strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public’s lives aren’t at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn’t wasn’t to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
Nah, they properly strike. The transporation company might try to get some replacements and shift around bus drivers that aren’t striking, but it usually means no or greatly reduced service.
But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you’d have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.
PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.
There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don’t collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn’t work for air travel, but it works for other services.
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can’t strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public’s lives aren’t at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn’t wasn’t to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
Bus drivers strike all the time.
Yes, but usually they do it by other means as to not driving the bus (or they don’t drive the buses only for a limited time within the strike).
But countries differ a lot in regards what is basic infrastructure.
(Lol, typo, I meant doctors there, fixed.)
Nah, they properly strike. The transporation company might try to get some replacements and shift around bus drivers that aren’t striking, but it usually means no or greatly reduced service.
Yes, I know, in my county too.
But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you’d have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.
PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.
I absolutely want to know where I shop & who I vote for with my wallet (make profit for).
If that company is shitty to workers I’ll def try to avoid it.
Worker rights endeavours arent something to hide & dilute.
And yes, the employer needs to take into account customer view too (which they do).