Unions Oppose Oakland General Strike

[Modern School]

Oakland's unions have declared that they won't support the General Strike on November 2, called by the Occupy Oakland movement in response to the police brutality against their movement that occurred last week. In addition to tear gas, concussion grenades and bean bag bullets, an Iraq vet was nearly killed when a police projectile hit him in the head.

According to the Atlantic Wire, the Peralta teachers union and the ILWU have both publicly stated they won't call for a strike on November 2. Few, if any unions will, in fact. It is illegal for unions to join in solidarity strikes under the Taft-Hartley Act, which was enacted after America's last great General Strike, which occurred coincidentally in Oakland, in 1946. Officially supporting the General Strike could result in millions of dollars in fines and legal expenses to the unions. Additionally, both unions have said that to call a strike requires a vote of their general membership, something that they cannot easily pull off under such short notice.

However, if recent history is any indication, ILWU members will walk off the job anyway and join the protestors. The Peralta teachers union said it would do what it can to have its members there. The big question is, will other unions support their members' participation and, if so, will enough participate to result in a General Strike?

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2011/10/unions-oppose-oakland-general-strike.html

[jaxx]

1. From earlier today:

occupyoakland Occupy Oakland
by OccupyWallSt
BREAKING NEWS: #SEIU Local 1021, the biggest union in Oakland, just joined Wednesdays #GeneralStrike They're callin workers into the street!

[demosincebirth]

2. Its similar to a "secondary boycott" under the Taft-Hartey which was passed by congress and vetoed

by Harry Truman and over-ridden by congress. Well, the republicans still haven't changed their colors

[PETRUS]

3. Yes, that's true.

Which makes one wonder - if business leaders are such big fans of the "free market" and oppose "government regulation," then why do they support laws restricting workers rights and ability to organize? It would appear that "interfering with the market" is just fine, as long as you're interfering with the labor market to your own benefit.

[FBaggins]

4. There's a difference between lack of participation and "opposition" nt