<i>One method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the competent bodies, especially the employers.<p>This method is recognized by Catholic social teaching as legitimate in the proper conditions and within just limits. In this connection workers should be assured the right to strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for taking part in a strike.<p>While admitting that it is a legitimate means, we must at the same time emphasize that a strike remains, in a sense, an extreme means. It must not be abused; it must not be abused especially for "political" purposes. Furthermore it must never be forgotten that, when essential community services are in question, they must in every case be ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate legislation. Abuse of the strike weapon can lead to the paralysis of the whole of socioeconomic life, and this is contrary to the requirements of the common good of society, which also corresponds to the properly understood nature of work itself.</i><p>John Paul II, Laborem Execrens, 1981
they are comparing strikes to a doctor doing the following stuff:<p>> Assume that the physician (the employee) goes on strike. His ultimatum: “You pay me twice the fee I am now getting or I quit! Moreover, I shall use force to prevent any other physician from attending to your ailment. Meet my demands or do without medical care from now on.”<p>fee.org is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Education" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Economic_Educat...</a> which is a conservative think tank like the cato institute
Commonwealth v. Hunt is the legal case which established the right to unions in the US. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Hunt</a> .<p>The crux of the decision is:<p>> We think, therefore, that associations may be entered into, the object of which is to adopt measures that may have a tendency to impoverish another, that is, to diminish his gains and profits, and yet so far from being criminal or unlawful, the object may be highly meritorious and public spirited. The legality of such an association will therefore depend upon the means to be used for its accomplishment. If it is to be carried into effect by fair or honorable and lawful means, it is, to say the least, innocent; if by falsehood or force, it may be stamped with the character of conspiracy.<p>If you use legal methods to form and carry out a union, then it is fine.<p>The moral right to strike is the same as the moral right to form a company.<p>Archive.org tells me Commonwealth v. Hunt is not mentioned in the two page appendix essay "There Is No Moral Right to Strike" of "The Coming Aristocracy" at <a href="https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/page/168/mode/2up?q=%22strike%22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://archive.org/details/comingaristocrac0000leon_p8i8/pa...</a> .<p>The argument hinges on a definition that a strike is a "coercion to force unwilling exchange or to inhibit willing exchange", which is a something Commonwealth v. Hunt addressed over a century previous.
The argument seems to be that by striking, the employee is preventing the employer from employing someone else in that role and also depriving them of work.<p>I thought most US employment was "at will" and employees can be terminated for almost any reason?
(in response this article flagged)<p>I posted this because it is a different approach to strike, which impacts technology businesses increasingly. I read, nay, I seek out all kinds of material, across spectra and axes. How else would I learn and improve myself?<p>The only two choices in intellect is either to stagnate or grow.