this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
63 points (93.2% liked)

General Discussion

12058 readers
249 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.

🪆 About Lemmy World

🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!

💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:

Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Jessica@lemmy.world
ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world
fubo@lemmy.world
63
Thinking about how the U.S. should have a constitutional amendment banning state forces (e.g. police) from being used in labor disputes. (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago by kool_newt@lemm.ee to c/general@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One of the primary purposes of the police is to be able to break labor uprisings. This is so wrong and should be prevented in the strongest way possible. What do you all think? Is the U.S. constitution able to restrict police?

People from outside the U.S., what do you think of this type of idea?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the reality is they shot people over steel production and coal mining (and other non-threatening situations).

[–] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They even ordered a bunch of people running passenger trains back to work. And that wasn't 100 years ago, that was this year.

I think that's exactly the sort of situation that I'm talking about, there's no need for that. Even in the case of something like a coal mine, you need to have a very bare minimum number of people to keep pumping running or there won't be a mine to go back to, well there's no reason why you couldn't just continue to send your staff (non union employees) to the mine site to do that bare minimum of work during strikes.

Of course, act of violence or sabotage shouldn't be tolerated. And that's where police should be able to step in if something is going on other than just a work stoppage. What happens quite often is the government steps in because it's politically inconvenient to have a strike happen.

In this regard, I think the government stepping in to do something like that is a violation of basic human rights. You can't just force people to work, and you certainly can't punish people for an otherwise legal expression of speech just because the speech is inconvenient for you.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

In this regard, I think the government stepping in to do something like that is a violation of basic human rights. You can’t just force people to work, and you certainly can’t punish people for an otherwise legal expression of speech just because the speech is inconvenient for you.

The inconvenience is people realizing that there's power in solidarity. The reason our geriatric overlords are still in power is because of a collective sense of inability to effect change.