[badwulf]

> This has always been the logic of the strike as a means of protest - sure, it's unfair, but its also the way labor politics works.

Except this has nothing to do with labour politics, the controversial "Muslim ban" had nothing to do with taxi laws. Using a labour union to push a political agenda is basically abuse of power. Imagine if pro-Trump police would start striking...

> And honestly, with a strike lasting only an hour, it feels much more symbolic than a real hardball days-long strike.

If you are visiting the US for the first time, you probably won't know that, and you might not even be able to get off the airport.

They could have had their protest in an area where people would have noticed them and in a way that does not harm innocent bystanders.

> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.

Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.

[azernik]

Labor unions and labor movements push political non-labor agendas all the time. For example, general strikes led by labor movements are standard tools of nationalist and anti-colonial independence movements, and Western labor unions have gone on strike to demand better environmental policies.

>> Because it's the biggest way to show power the taxi drivers have.

> Any amount of power they have, the state has more of it. The only way they can achieve something is if they get the public on their side.

This is an argument over tactics, where I believe the left-wing outpouring of support has vindicated the decision to strike. They've drawn attention to their cause, and brought to mind a productive sector of the economy dominated by immigrants (particularly from the Middle East and South Asia). People are often persuaded by the depth of feeling shown by others, and strikes (since they damage your own income) are a good way of proving your dedication in a material way.