6 ms·

I'm consistently impressed by French solidarity to just go on a strike until they get their government (or a company in this case) to start treating them fairly

I'm consistently impressed by French solidarity to just go on a strike until they get their government (or a company in this case) to start treating them fairly. I wish that could work in the UK, but alas, we don't do that here.

kevmo 3y ago
To nitpick: It WOULD work, but alas, you don't do it. This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws, especially regarding railroads.
- tunnuz 3y ago
  It might have something to do with being chased by brutal horse-mounted police and beaten up in the past.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > It WOULD work, but alas, you don't do it. This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws. My mom did it reasonably often as a teacher. The state made it illegal for her to ever strike again. Maybe not being willing to go to jail for refusing to work is why she doesn't do it? It's crazy to me that the law is basically "show up to work for whatever we decide to pay you, or go to jail" (via contempt of court, usually, if they continue to strike after a judge orders teachers to go back to work and fines them for each day of missed work). So the other option is to "strike" by quitting and starting over in a completely new career. Enough people have done that that some schools are having trouble opening[0]. Somehow even that doesn't seem to raise wages. So -- for teachers at least, striking literally doesn't work. Enough teachers quit that schools can't stay open, and yet the wages don't rise to hire enough teachers. It's insane. 0: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/us/teacher-shortage-lowering-qualifications-wisconsin/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/us/teacher-shortage-lowering-...
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Generally if it is an illegal strike, it means you can be legally fired, not that you will be taken to jail.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/1749835342838906893 https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/174983534283890689... Jail is always an option when someone is subject to contempt of court. In other states it's the individual teachers who get automatically fined, not the union. Contempt of court could also apply to the individuals if the judge wanted to make it so.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        > Jail is always an option when someone is subject to contempt of court Not civil contempt :) I don't know of any modern case in the US where so eone has ever been jailed for striking, even wildcat.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I don't want to be dramatic here so don't read too deeply into the comparison: I'm sure black people weren't willing to go to jail either some 60 years ago. Or worse. Most of the biggest change was achieved with the biggest sacrifice. If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term. If enough refuse to do it they have to bargain, illegal or not. And it wouldn't take long since it'd imoh be a few days (if that) before the parents join in, with kids either not learning or not going to school over the lack of supervision. The big issue here is the collective isn't big enough in some areas. Or there's enough supply coming in when the old batch walk out (which is partially why the teachers quitting aren't getting the effect. Teaching is partially a passion job and thst keeps supply high).
    - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      The problem is you have to sacrifice to fight against the move of people that take no risk. It's a very unfair battle.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Indeed. The house holds most of the cards. But it's not risk-free per se. It's just a prisoners dilemma that hasn't had a chance to shift to the worst case scenario of "literally everyone leaves". Probably still a safe bet, but it's only as safe as the people they are gambling with. Sad part is that it's bad but not necessarily "life or death" for many teachers as of now. But it may be that way if we keep going.
    - arexxbifs 3y ago
      > If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term. British health workers (nurses, ambulance workers) went on strike during 2022 and 2023. Their union eventually accepted a 5% pay increase - down from their initial 19% demand - which doesn't even begin to cover inflation. Most demands fizzle out into nearly nothing and most unions are by now massive bureaucratic machines, staffed with people more focused on their own interests and careers than on those of their members. The same pattern can be seen with nurses in Sweden. Salaries aren't high enough, funds aren't allocated, nurses quit their jobs. To find new hires, standards must be lowered. "The state" no longer cares. That's what decline looks like.
  - devjab 3y ago
    To many Danes (everyone I’ve ever discussed it with) Americans are simply “ridiculous” in the way you keep electing people who hurt you. It’s like you’re in a continuous abusive relationship with your own democracy. My wife and I just had twins, and while it went fine they needed CPAP to help their lungs develop fully because they were born with a c-section. Which put them in the children’s intensive care unit for around 12 hours and afterward we lived for 7 days in the specialised ward for children with troubled births. And it cost us around $100 because the lodging for spouses isn’t free for the first 3 days(3 meals a day + fruits and cake and all sorts of drinkable stuff that I don’t know the English names for… mostly concentrated fruit you mix with water). Now, I do pay around 57% in taxes on everything I earn above $90k and 39% before that (my wife pays 37% since she doesn’t earn above $90k). But I do sort of “cheat” the system by investing 14% of my pay before taxes into methods that will let me pay 25% in taxes on another $10k a year, and some that goes directly into my children’s investments. Anyway, that is what we pay for everyone to have this opportunity in our country. I’m not going to pretend our system is perfect. Like, I have a private health insurance through my job which led me skip a two year wait time when I was diagnosed with bipolar type2 after having some issues with stress. And that’s obviously not available to everyone, and a two year wait period is obviously terrible for people who can’t turn to the private sector. So everything isn’t perfect. But when you then read about how US citizens pay ridiculous amount of money to have children… when they live in a nation which is significantly richer than ours… it just baffles the mind. Similarly we have about 9 months of maternity leave. 2 months of which are with full pay for my wife, and 14 weeks are with full pay for me (I have really terms through my work often it’s only 2-4 weeks for spouses). But even when you aren’t on full pay, you’re still getting around $5k a month from the government. You’re also paid around $1k per child every 3 months for the first couple of years of their lives (something which should probably be limited by income if we’re honest since people like us need it a lot less than most Danes). My wife transferred some of her maternity leave and was decades sick for the first two months, so I’m getting around 30 weeks of paternity leave which does mean a significant decrease in income this year, but then you look at how US citizens basically have no paid leave and again… it’s just so weird. And you’ve chosen this yourselves. I know it’s not as easy as that, but you are a democracy and you do elect your leaders and a huge part of you are basically wage slaves. I know a lot of HN’ers are likely to also have good terms, it comes with our line or work, but as a whole… I mean, just why?
  - ponector 3y ago
    Either accept current treatment or quit. It is fascinating how on individual level everyone wants better education for their children but as society people do the opposite. Government and their voters are not interested in paying more or in better educated children. In the end dumb people are easier to manipulate to do "right and only correct" decision on the election day.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      > It is fascinating how on individual level everyone wants better education for their children but as society people do the opposite. Every time a government changes everything is up for grabs too. Suddenly politicians are experts and can decide on the curriculum. They went to school once so know everything about teaching?
- phantomathkg 3y ago
  > This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws, especially regarding railroads. And the people suffer?
  - arexxbifs 3y ago
    Only from things like regular and catastrophic freight train derailments.
  - kevmo 3y ago
    Yes. The people suffer greatly.
gambiting 3y ago
The British national motto is literally "well, what are you going to do". I have no idea what it would take for the general population to strike.
- nxm 3y ago
  What would a general population strike be calling for? Be very specific - aren’t elections a form of a general population strike?
  - southerntofu 3y ago
    Elections are the opposite of a strike. Elections were designed to prevent the people from exerting power, by dividing them along arbitrary lines (party lines) and then concentrating power in the hands of the few. Strikes are designed to redistribute power in the hands of those at the bottom, if only until certain demands are met.
- mattmanser 3y ago
  We're going through serious strikes at the moment. Right now, the junior doctors are striking. Not sure what you mean by general population, but we had major riots about 10 years ago where some police stations got attacked.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    I mean, I have multiple examples of recent and semi-recent government policies that I'm certain would lead to Paris being on actual fire if they were proposed in France, but in the UK they are met with apathy at best. Strikes of rail workers and doctors are of course strikes, but they are mostly limited to just not working, and the impact is mostly pissing off the population rather than the government. It's out of their view, it doesn't impact their lives in any way other than journalists asking annoying questions about it.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > Strikes of rail workers and doctors are of course strikes, but they are mostly limited to just not working, Not working is the definition of a strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action > Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike and industrial action in British English, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. Rioting and damaging property is not part of a strike. That is somewhere on the road to a war, or some other word for conflict resolution resulting involving violence.
bionsystem 3y ago
In France striking is a fundamental right just like marching (assuming you make the demand to the authorities and it gets accepted). However what I dislike about the situation is that everybody strikes and manifests for his own core interest separately. I think we should really get into a more coordinated effort. Most of those strikes have failed.
- wazoox 3y ago
  You're not asking for the authority to accept you to march, you simply announce that you'll march, which, as a fundamental right, can't be rejected by the authorities beforehand unless there are serious reasons to believe that major trouble will occur. Though in the recent years several protests were forbidden by the authorities, it still is completely exceptional, and the marches happened anyway (and of course, major fights with the police ensued).
  - bionsystem 3y ago
    I agree with what you and your brother comment say, however you are both missing my 2 main points :) Which are that being a fundamental right it is easier to do and also the right is misused in my opinion, we should consolidate forces instead of striking in turn each year.
- southerntofu 3y ago
  This is not entirely wrong, but is misleading. Yes, striking is supposed to be a protected worker right, but there are entire regulations to follow for that ("préavis" / "droit de retrait" etc). However, it was not always the case and for most of french history striking was illegal and heavily repressed. It's important to note, because in the past decade or so there's been massive retaliation against some organized workers in certain corporations and even in public services like La Poste. Striking is only protected as long as the balance of power shifts in our direction, and it's fair to say that the bourgeoisie has been gaining momentum while we have lost significant rights since Sarkozy, and our protests have been heavily repressed including maiming and murders by cops. As for demonstrations, what you said is incorrect. There is no obligation for the prefecture to approve your request before you go on a demo. There is indeed an obligation to declare it but unless it's explicitly forbidden you are go. It used to be, not so long ago that undeclared demos were legal and i believe it was only under nazi occupation that they weren't. Sarkozy changed that to repress young people hanging out in public spaces by making 3 people or more hanging out together illegal. It's important to understand that outlawing demonstrations in France (along with other obvious signs of growing fascism) are a rather recent phenomenon. Except for workers/ecologist or pro-Gaza demonstrations repressed in the past decade, the last forbidden demonstrations in France date from the 60s (in support of Algerian independence). Still, they'll never stop our "manif sauvage" :)
boudin 3y ago
Some people do in the uk, I like this website to have an idea of what's happening in the country: https://www.strikecalendar.co.uk/ https://www.strikecalendar.co.uk/
saiya-jin 3y ago
Solidarity? You must live far from actual France and have some romantic young rosy view on events far away. Almost everybody who isn't protesting is pissed off at folks protesting, since they block you from doing basic things in life like going to work, shopping groceries, driving anywhere or flying, taking train, going to gas station, going to hospital (I kid you not, you can be unlucky and literally die to negligence when health care sector goes on strike and nobody would bat an eye too much, and french public health care sector is not in good state currently). Cca half of my colleagues commute daily to work from France, so I have some group of quite opinionated citizens that express their honest opinions loudly outside of French borders. There are often good causes behind strikes. What they actually do though every single time, is take rest of civilian population as hostages, make their life as miserable as possible for as long as possible, to create pressure on politicians. See a little flaw in the logic above? You consistently end up in the crowd of hostages that take various pressures from side to side, often in matters unrelated to yours (say massive subsidies to diary farmers should be even more massive, nobody got time to improve efficiency or processes so market gets distorted more and more and local farmers are brutally incompetitive on their own), and you and your family suffers. US population would not handle such massive things nicely I believe, not with so many guns and gun/freedom culture in general population.
- wazoox 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - brnt 3y ago
xwolfi 3y ago
I was so impressed that I left France forever and Im never coming back. Couch activists like you have no idea the misery those constant distracting productivity-killing micro-movements do to the country in aggregate. I wish you could enjoy them in your country and we wouldnt have to. But well, as long as we can leave France when we dont like it I guess it's fine.
buro9 3y ago
it could work in the UK, the union you want is this one: https://utaw.tech/about/ https://utaw.tech/about/ UTAW United Tech & Allied Workers although others are options too (UTAW is part of the CWU Communications Workers Union). want better rights and working conditions: join a union, get everyone that you can to join the union, strikes do work. want better salaries: decline jobs solely and purely on the basis of the salary not meeting expectations, the signal that they cannot hire because no-one accepts the salary forces an employer to pay more. leave jobs that are not paying well, and give that single reason in the exit interview. both require the same thing... solidarity amongst the workers. it doesn't work in the UK because of a lack of that, everyone is very much in it for themselves, and so there is no solidarity. but better salaries and conditions are achievable everywhere that there is solidarity. the starting point can be to join a union, but needs to include everyone talking about their rights and conditions and discussing unions. Signal is a great tool btw... DO NOT discuss unions on work owned channels, take the conversation elsewhere. where I work embraces a healthy relationship between the employer and employee, but I've been at places before where merely talking about a union would get you fired some entirely unrelated thing. oh, and be very prepared to fight for people in a weaker position than you. the basis of a union is that when you act in solidarity to protect the weakest, you protect everyone else too. the poem First They Came by Pastor Martin Niemöller, this works in the context of workers rights too... protect your trans, black, women, disabled colleagues, and if they have equality and fair treatment, then you almost certainly all do.
manojlds 3y ago
Yeah we NEED more strikes in the UK
rldjbpin 3y ago
the uk also have strikes, at least with transportation. this was my observation during my first visit.

kevmo 3y ago

To nitpick: It WOULD work, but alas, you don't do it. This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws, especially regarding railroads.

tunnuz 3y ago
It might have something to do with being chased by brutal horse-mounted police and beaten up in the past.
reaperman 3y ago
> It WOULD work, but alas, you don't do it. This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws. My mom did it reasonably often as a teacher. The state made it illegal for her to ever strike again. Maybe not being willing to go to jail for refusing to work is why she doesn't do it? It's crazy to me that the law is basically "show up to work for whatever we decide to pay you, or go to jail" (via contempt of court, usually, if they continue to strike after a judge orders teachers to go back to work and fines them for each day of missed work). So the other option is to "strike" by quitting and starting over in a completely new career. Enough people have done that that some schools are having trouble opening[0]. Somehow even that doesn't seem to raise wages. So -- for teachers at least, striking literally doesn't work. Enough teachers quit that schools can't stay open, and yet the wages don't rise to hire enough teachers. It's insane. 0: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/us/teacher-shortage-lowering-qualifications-wisconsin/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/03/us/teacher-shortage-lowering-...
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Generally if it is an illegal strike, it means you can be legally fired, not that you will be taken to jail.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/1749835342838906893 https://twitter.com/DeAngelisCorey/status/174983534283890689... Jail is always an option when someone is subject to contempt of court. In other states it's the individual teachers who get automatically fined, not the union. Contempt of court could also apply to the individuals if the judge wanted to make it so.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      > Jail is always an option when someone is subject to contempt of court Not civil contempt :) I don't know of any modern case in the US where so eone has ever been jailed for striking, even wildcat.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I don't want to be dramatic here so don't read too deeply into the comparison: I'm sure black people weren't willing to go to jail either some 60 years ago. Or worse. Most of the biggest change was achieved with the biggest sacrifice. If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term. If enough refuse to do it they have to bargain, illegal or not. And it wouldn't take long since it'd imoh be a few days (if that) before the parents join in, with kids either not learning or not going to school over the lack of supervision. The big issue here is the collective isn't big enough in some areas. Or there's enough supply coming in when the old batch walk out (which is partially why the teachers quitting aren't getting the effect. Teaching is partially a passion job and thst keeps supply high).
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    The problem is you have to sacrifice to fight against the move of people that take no risk. It's a very unfair battle.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Indeed. The house holds most of the cards. But it's not risk-free per se. It's just a prisoners dilemma that hasn't had a chance to shift to the worst case scenario of "literally everyone leaves". Probably still a safe bet, but it's only as safe as the people they are gambling with. Sad part is that it's bad but not necessarily "life or death" for many teachers as of now. But it may be that way if we keep going.
  - arexxbifs 3y ago
    > If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term. British health workers (nurses, ambulance workers) went on strike during 2022 and 2023. Their union eventually accepted a 5% pay increase - down from their initial 19% demand - which doesn't even begin to cover inflation. Most demands fizzle out into nearly nothing and most unions are by now massive bureaucratic machines, staffed with people more focused on their own interests and careers than on those of their members. The same pattern can be seen with nurses in Sweden. Salaries aren't high enough, funds aren't allocated, nurses quit their jobs. To find new hires, standards must be lowered. "The state" no longer cares. That's what decline looks like.
- devjab 3y ago
  To many Danes (everyone I’ve ever discussed it with) Americans are simply “ridiculous” in the way you keep electing people who hurt you. It’s like you’re in a continuous abusive relationship with your own democracy. My wife and I just had twins, and while it went fine they needed CPAP to help their lungs develop fully because they were born with a c-section. Which put them in the children’s intensive care unit for around 12 hours and afterward we lived for 7 days in the specialised ward for children with troubled births. And it cost us around $100 because the lodging for spouses isn’t free for the first 3 days(3 meals a day + fruits and cake and all sorts of drinkable stuff that I don’t know the English names for… mostly concentrated fruit you mix with water). Now, I do pay around 57% in taxes on everything I earn above $90k and 39% before that (my wife pays 37% since she doesn’t earn above $90k). But I do sort of “cheat” the system by investing 14% of my pay before taxes into methods that will let me pay 25% in taxes on another $10k a year, and some that goes directly into my children’s investments. Anyway, that is what we pay for everyone to have this opportunity in our country. I’m not going to pretend our system is perfect. Like, I have a private health insurance through my job which led me skip a two year wait time when I was diagnosed with bipolar type2 after having some issues with stress. And that’s obviously not available to everyone, and a two year wait period is obviously terrible for people who can’t turn to the private sector. So everything isn’t perfect. But when you then read about how US citizens pay ridiculous amount of money to have children… when they live in a nation which is significantly richer than ours… it just baffles the mind. Similarly we have about 9 months of maternity leave. 2 months of which are with full pay for my wife, and 14 weeks are with full pay for me (I have really terms through my work often it’s only 2-4 weeks for spouses). But even when you aren’t on full pay, you’re still getting around $5k a month from the government. You’re also paid around $1k per child every 3 months for the first couple of years of their lives (something which should probably be limited by income if we’re honest since people like us need it a lot less than most Danes). My wife transferred some of her maternity leave and was decades sick for the first two months, so I’m getting around 30 weeks of paternity leave which does mean a significant decrease in income this year, but then you look at how US citizens basically have no paid leave and again… it’s just so weird. And you’ve chosen this yourselves. I know it’s not as easy as that, but you are a democracy and you do elect your leaders and a huge part of you are basically wage slaves. I know a lot of HN’ers are likely to also have good terms, it comes with our line or work, but as a whole… I mean, just why?
- ponector 3y ago
  Either accept current treatment or quit. It is fascinating how on individual level everyone wants better education for their children but as society people do the opposite. Government and their voters are not interested in paying more or in better educated children. In the end dumb people are easier to manipulate to do "right and only correct" decision on the election day.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > It is fascinating how on individual level everyone wants better education for their children but as society people do the opposite. Every time a government changes everything is up for grabs too. Suddenly politicians are experts and can decide on the curriculum. They went to school once so know everything about teaching?
phantomathkg 3y ago
> This is also why the USA has all those anti-strike laws, especially regarding railroads. And the people suffer?
- arexxbifs 3y ago
  Only from things like regular and catastrophic freight train derailments.
- kevmo 3y ago
  Yes. The people suffer greatly.

gambiting 3y ago

The British national motto is literally "well, what are you going to do". I have no idea what it would take for the general population to strike.

nxm 3y ago
What would a general population strike be calling for? Be very specific - aren’t elections a form of a general population strike?
- southerntofu 3y ago
  Elections are the opposite of a strike. Elections were designed to prevent the people from exerting power, by dividing them along arbitrary lines (party lines) and then concentrating power in the hands of the few. Strikes are designed to redistribute power in the hands of those at the bottom, if only until certain demands are met.
mattmanser 3y ago
We're going through serious strikes at the moment. Right now, the junior doctors are striking. Not sure what you mean by general population, but we had major riots about 10 years ago where some police stations got attacked.
- gambiting 3y ago
  I mean, I have multiple examples of recent and semi-recent government policies that I'm certain would lead to Paris being on actual fire if they were proposed in France, but in the UK they are met with apathy at best. Strikes of rail workers and doctors are of course strikes, but they are mostly limited to just not working, and the impact is mostly pissing off the population rather than the government. It's out of their view, it doesn't impact their lives in any way other than journalists asking annoying questions about it.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Strikes of rail workers and doctors are of course strikes, but they are mostly limited to just not working, Not working is the definition of a strike. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action > Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike and industrial action in British English, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. Rioting and damaging property is not part of a strike. That is somewhere on the road to a war, or some other word for conflict resolution resulting involving violence.

bionsystem 3y ago

In France striking is a fundamental right just like marching (assuming you make the demand to the authorities and it gets accepted). However what I dislike about the situation is that everybody strikes and manifests for his own core interest separately. I think we should really get into a more coordinated effort. Most of those strikes have failed.

wazoox 3y ago
You're not asking for the authority to accept you to march, you simply announce that you'll march, which, as a fundamental right, can't be rejected by the authorities beforehand unless there are serious reasons to believe that major trouble will occur. Though in the recent years several protests were forbidden by the authorities, it still is completely exceptional, and the marches happened anyway (and of course, major fights with the police ensued).
- bionsystem 3y ago
  I agree with what you and your brother comment say, however you are both missing my 2 main points :) Which are that being a fundamental right it is easier to do and also the right is misused in my opinion, we should consolidate forces instead of striking in turn each year.
southerntofu 3y ago
This is not entirely wrong, but is misleading. Yes, striking is supposed to be a protected worker right, but there are entire regulations to follow for that ("préavis" / "droit de retrait" etc). However, it was not always the case and for most of french history striking was illegal and heavily repressed. It's important to note, because in the past decade or so there's been massive retaliation against some organized workers in certain corporations and even in public services like La Poste. Striking is only protected as long as the balance of power shifts in our direction, and it's fair to say that the bourgeoisie has been gaining momentum while we have lost significant rights since Sarkozy, and our protests have been heavily repressed including maiming and murders by cops. As for demonstrations, what you said is incorrect. There is no obligation for the prefecture to approve your request before you go on a demo. There is indeed an obligation to declare it but unless it's explicitly forbidden you are go. It used to be, not so long ago that undeclared demos were legal and i believe it was only under nazi occupation that they weren't. Sarkozy changed that to repress young people hanging out in public spaces by making 3 people or more hanging out together illegal. It's important to understand that outlawing demonstrations in France (along with other obvious signs of growing fascism) are a rather recent phenomenon. Except for workers/ecologist or pro-Gaza demonstrations repressed in the past decade, the last forbidden demonstrations in France date from the 60s (in support of Algerian independence). Still, they'll never stop our "manif sauvage" :)

boudin 3y ago

Some people do in the uk, I like this website to have an idea of what's happening in the country: https://www.strikecalendar.co.uk/ https://www.strikecalendar.co.uk/

saiya-jin 3y ago

Solidarity? You must live far from actual France and have some romantic young rosy view on events far away. Almost everybody who isn't protesting is pissed off at folks protesting, since they block you from doing basic things in life like going to work, shopping groceries, driving anywhere or flying, taking train, going to gas station, going to hospital (I kid you not, you can be unlucky and literally die to negligence when health care sector goes on strike and nobody would bat an eye too much, and french public health care sector is not in good state currently). Cca half of my colleagues commute daily to work from France, so I have some group of quite opinionated citizens that express their honest opinions loudly outside of French borders. There are often good causes behind strikes. What they actually do though every single time, is take rest of civilian population as hostages, make their life as miserable as possible for as long as possible, to create pressure on politicians. See a little flaw in the logic above? You consistently end up in the crowd of hostages that take various pressures from side to side, often in matters unrelated to yours (say massive subsidies to diary farmers should be even more massive, nobody got time to improve efficiency or processes so market gets distorted more and more and local farmers are brutally incompetitive on their own), and you and your family suffers. US population would not handle such massive things nicely I believe, not with so many guns and gun/freedom culture in general population.

wazoox 3y ago
[flagged]
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- brnt 3y ago

xwolfi 3y ago

I was so impressed that I left France forever and Im never coming back. Couch activists like you have no idea the misery those constant distracting productivity-killing micro-movements do to the country in aggregate. I wish you could enjoy them in your country and we wouldnt have to. But well, as long as we can leave France when we dont like it I guess it's fine.

buro9 3y ago

it could work in the UK, the union you want is this one: https://utaw.tech/about/ https://utaw.tech/about/ UTAW United Tech & Allied Workers although others are options too (UTAW is part of the CWU Communications Workers Union). want better rights and working conditions: join a union, get everyone that you can to join the union, strikes do work. want better salaries: decline jobs solely and purely on the basis of the salary not meeting expectations, the signal that they cannot hire because no-one accepts the salary forces an employer to pay more. leave jobs that are not paying well, and give that single reason in the exit interview. both require the same thing... solidarity amongst the workers. it doesn't work in the UK because of a lack of that, everyone is very much in it for themselves, and so there is no solidarity. but better salaries and conditions are achievable everywhere that there is solidarity. the starting point can be to join a union, but needs to include everyone talking about their rights and conditions and discussing unions. Signal is a great tool btw... DO NOT discuss unions on work owned channels, take the conversation elsewhere. where I work embraces a healthy relationship between the employer and employee, but I've been at places before where merely talking about a union would get you fired some entirely unrelated thing. oh, and be very prepared to fight for people in a weaker position than you. the basis of a union is that when you act in solidarity to protect the weakest, you protect everyone else too. the poem First They Came by Pastor Martin Niemöller, this works in the context of workers rights too... protect your trans, black, women, disabled colleagues, and if they have equality and fair treatment, then you almost certainly all do.

manojlds 3y ago

Yeah we NEED more strikes in the UK

rldjbpin 3y ago

the uk also have strikes, at least with transportation. this was my observation during my first visit.