[awhitty]

  Wonder how the author here would feel about surgeons going on strike scheduled intentionally after beginning open heart surgery on a loved one?

This is a silly comparison. Concrete trucks don’t have beating hearts - they’re just property owned by the business. It’s important to recognize life as distinct.

Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, and they otherwise generally care about the well-being of their patients. Also, it is illegal to strike at a health care facility without first giving 10-days notice (to plan how to continue care). I’ve talked to residents organizing at Mass General Brigham, and (though they aren’t planning a strike) my vague understanding is that the logistics of striking in health care are targeted more at paperwork rather than holding up care (e.g. provide the care but don’t sign the notes so billing can’t commence).

I recommend reading more about how organizing in health care works - it’s complex, very topical these days, and I think it’ll show you that folks tend to care for one another. Too easy for Silicon Valley edge-case thinkers to reach for ad absurdum armchair arguments like “what if a doctor let their patient die on the operating table because they want more money” - that’s not where their heads are at at all.

It’s also incredibly important that quality of life improves for health care workers. Med students are 3x more likely to die by suicide than the general population.

[kcplate]

While it may not be an apples to apples comparison and certainly exaggerates the impact (a human life vs property), it describes the mechanism of the intentional destruction of property in this case pretty well.

Even the NLRB states that a strike may be considered unlawful if it deprives company owners of their property. Timing the strike to intentionally destroy company trucks seems to go far beyond the act of the organized withholding of human labor.

https://www.nlrb.gov/strikes

[awhitty]

No, it certainly does not describe the mechanism. One is inconveniencing a business and one is murder. Please don’t get confused on this.

[kcplate]

No, I am not confused. One is murder and one is intentional destruction of property. Both results are due to intentional sabotage by the actors involved.

[awhitty]

Doctors… don’t murder folks (I mean, yes, this has happened, but not as a strategy of a strike). It’s a nonsense hypothetical created to make striking sound absurd. I’ve already described in general terms how striking in health care works. Walking out to strike mid-open-heart surgery doesn’t happen - it doesn’t benefit the doctor, and they would be liable for their actions (and for violating the 10-day notice, presumably). There are legal differences between property damage and taking a life, so the comparison isn’t particularly useful.

[isityouyesitsme]

I'm unable to ascertain if you're being intentionally obtuse or merely unable to follow how analogies work.

[awhitty]

I draw a line at trying to compare property damage and homicide as if they stem from the same “mechanism”. There’s no analogy to be made there. The striking workers didn’t kill anyone, and it’s insidious to float “how would the author feel if a striking doctor planned their action to kill someone” hypotheticals because murder and property damage are not united under some definition of “sabotage”.

Like, what’s the useful takeaway from the comparison? Cement getting left in a truck is like losing a loved one? Really? Striking workers performing something like sabotage is similar to pre-meditated murder? Are these useful comparisons? I don’t think so.

[kcplate]

You are hung up on the end effect instead of the cause. The point is that sabotage is wrong even in the context of labor strikes.

[josephcsible]

> This is a silly comparison. Concrete trucks don’t have beating hearts - they’re just property owned by the business. It’s important to recognize life as distinct.

Okay, consider this scenario instead: you're getting an addition put on your house. Right after ripping the old roof off, the workers all go on strike, letting your house fill up with rain and snow.

[awhitty]

Depends on the nature of the relationship with the workers.

If I’m employing them directly, I doubt there would be reason for a strike - what are they striking against? I don’t have a construction company. They’re either doing the work as contractors, and I’ll pay for it, or they aren’t doing the work, and they don’t get paid. IANAL, but I doubt it’s considered a strike if contractors skip a job or abandon a job midway through. Also, it’s important to foster a good relationship with your contractors and to make sure both parties agree they’re benefiting from the business relationship. That’s just simple good business.

If they are under someone else’s employ, the comparison doesn’t add up - the cement-in-truck didn’t cause substantial damages to the customer. (Maybe delayed schedule? I don’t know the details of the case.) What you are describing harms the customer directly. Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer. Rather more often than not they’re seeking to change the terms of their employment to benefit the customer, whether that’s more staffing, more safety, or more manageable hours to provide better service. These are folks working closest to the customer touchpoints, and I’m inclined to trust their knowledge of customer service more than management’s.

Does that make sense?

[josephcsible]

> Talk to folks that are striking, and they will almost unanimously say they don’t want to inconvenience the customer.

While they might say that, actions speak louder than words, and I as a customer have been inconvenienced a lot by strikes, e.g., when my car sat in the shop for over 2 months because it needed a part that ran out of stock and a UAW strike delayed any more of from getting made.