Written By: - Date published: 11:56 am, July 3rd, 2008 - 71 comments
Categories: workers' rights -
Tags: democracy, Employment Relations Act, right to strike, trucks
Howcome when capital goes on strike over political issues it’s seen as a legitimate part of democracy, but if workers tried the same thing it would be illegal under the Employment Relations Act?
[UPDATE: Seems frog had similar thoughts over here.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
A propos of this distinction (or equivalence) between a strike and a protest, how do we categorise any one of the hikoi that have occurred. I don’t recall anything of the kind that Tim claimed when the Harbour Bridge was closed:
“Imagine if a bunch of cleaners or fast food workers in a union decided to have a sit in and stop traffic in Queen St. The cops would be arresting people left, right and centre and they would be denounced as lawless trouble makers. Will the cops be moving truckies on or arresting them tomorrow? Doubt it.”
Then Tane said
“Graeme, because we’re not talking about an industrial dispute, we’re talking about a political strike – where a large organised group stop what they’re doing and try to grind the country to a halt to advance a political cause.”
Care to relate that to the hikoi Tane? and what exactly is wrong or should be illegal about that?