Isn't it illegal for an employer to retaliate against striking unionized employees?
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
592 points (98.5% liked)
Work Reform
10003 readers
44 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Laws protect business, not workers.
yes but the law has no teeth. The punishment is a strongly worded letter from a judge and a fine that is cheaper than paying an employee.
a General Strike is needed
This is precisely why public, non-profit, university hospitals are always superior.
For profit hospitals are a historic aberration.
That is probably not true if you look across the history of human civilization. I agree that it’s a recent development vis a vis growth in this area.
The observation was intended as applying to the industrial era, since such is the time within which emerged hospitals as we now know them.
However, I feel the same generalization holds more broadly. Hospitals have not been instituted to enrich an owner.
There’s a reason that hospital and hospitality are such related words. They were originally more like inns with physicians. You paid for a room and received treatment in it. Profit was certainly part of the picture.
There are many variations of the theme throughout history that may be called hospitals, but any large facility for housing the ill would have tended to have no private owner. Doctors visiting the homes of patients has been more common historically than patients visiting homes or offices of doctors.
Now that’s the service I wish still existed.
One problem is that as technology has been advanced to treat health conditions, care for individuals has been forgotten in its basic essence of being humane and social.
Even more reason to strike. Issue 1 in the demands: we still get healthcare when we strike
Once you cross a certain line, you might as well be suggesting burning down the house and building a new one.
I wish they make their own hospital with blackjack and hookers.
America, fuck yeah!
Land of the free.
Is there a way to view this article without subscribing?
Like most of whatever parent company or crappy site interface some mid-tier cities have, if you reload the page a few times it should give you the option to view? Maybe you got the adock popup, same thing, there is usually an option out. I'm not a subscriber.
Open it on Mozilla and choose reader view?
That's obscene. I hope the nurses teach them their place.
Keep going. Fuck them.
Healthcare can stay private as far as I'm concerned, but it certainly shouldn't be provided by the employer. Just give me more cash and let me buy my own.
The profit motive definitely deforms the structure of medicine and medical services.
A guarantee for coverage, with most providers being private, is the essence of the systems in many countries, and is far better than the system in the US.
Yet, even considered globally, our world has been made bleaker by the domination of healthcare, for development, manufacturing, and distribution of technology and processes through private corporations, the features of such systems including monopolies, patents, and private investment.
We might try to imagine medicinal systems being structured and practiced as a public good, emphasizing human life as having the highest value.