• mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    61·
    11 days ago

    It’s also ineffective in the short term as a strike, because the rich will just wait it out. One day of slightly lower productivity isn’t going to grind things to a halt. What makes a strike powerful is that it continues until grievances are remedied. A true strike takes months or even years to organize, and it takes a lot of unionized money to keep people from going broke during an extended strike. After all, the strikers need to be able to wait out the rich and powerful. Those union dues are largely to allow the union to pay striking workers.

    However, with all of this being said, this kind of thing is good for normalizing strikes. America largely doesn’t strike. But if you can establish a new normal for protests, it makes the larger things much much easier to organize in the long term.

    • fizzle@quokk.auEnglish
      11·
      11 days ago

      It doesn’t make sense to me, I honestly doubt retailers will even notice.

      Everyone who does actually participate will just buy their stuff the day before or the day after.

      An ongoing boycott of a specific vendor makes much more sense to me. Easier for everyone to do, and more impactful.

    • mirshafie@europe.pub
      0·
      11 days ago

      This sounds like a wildcat strike to me. Not perhaps the most effective means to an end, but important when there’s no other outlet. A good outcome may be establishing better unions. The mere threat of a strike should have capital shaking in their boots.

      • Elaine@lemmy.world
        2·
        10 days ago

        I wouldn’t expect many people in an actual union to take part in this because that _would _ be a wildcat strike.

        In my experience with CWA it was like the ending of Animal Farm - could not see much difference between them and management. There are so many things that must happen before you would even hear the whispered hint of a strike.