And while legal and policy reforms can help build the labor movement some, the power of organized labor is not ultimately rooted in the state, but rather in the ability to halt production and wreak havoc even when the state is aligned against it.
Agreed - the power of the union is not based in legal authorization but the collective effect of being able to halt production.
But when the state is aligned against labor, as Taft-Hartley did to make these sorts of sympathy strikes illegal in the US, it becomes that much harder to use union power. Businesses can appeal to a supportive government to use the cops and National Guard to arrest "illegal" strikers.
How do we shift those laws to de-nerf union power? I don't know. The piece doesn't say how either.
Comments
Agreed - the power of the union is not based in legal authorization but the collective effect of being able to halt production.
But when the state is aligned against labor, as Taft-Hartley did to make these sorts of sympathy strikes illegal in the US, it becomes that much harder to use union power. Businesses can appeal to a supportive government to use the cops and National Guard to arrest "illegal" strikers.
How do we shift those laws to de-nerf union power? I don't know. The piece doesn't say how either.