[mundo]

What a terrible analogy. This strike didn't hurt anyone, it cost the employer money, which is exactly what they're supposed to do! A strike that doesn't cost money isn't a strike, and a union that can't strike is a social club.

[shukantpal]

The idea that strikes are intended to cost the company does not lend itself that workers can do anything that damages the company. Are workers allowed to blow up the trucks using TNT (as long as no one gets hurt)? Can they steal all the gasoline in the trucks and sell it on the secondary market? No.

Strikes are intended to lose the company money in a very specific way - by a lack of labor. They are not intended to lose the company money by intentional destruction of property (nor should they be intended to do that)

[mundo]

You sound like you're arguing with me, but all of the rules you described seem to suggest that what the strikers did in this case was legal. They didn't blow up anything or steal anything, they quit working at an inconvenient time.

Also, I think you're imagining a set of gentlemanly Marquis of Queensbury rules around strikes that don't exist. This isn't an elaborate ritual like the filibuster; labor dispute precedents are written in blood.

[shukantpal]

If you intentionally fill up a truck with material that destroys it and then leave it, that is property destruction. That is equivalent to blowing something up (the concrete expands and blows up the truck) in that it is property damage.

Another example to help you understand:

If I came into my office in the morning with a highly flammable liquid and put them where the sun shines in the afternoon, and then intentionally left for "striking" - the ensuing office fire would be property damage on my part.

[nullc]

It's an extreme example. There is a difference between just not doing the work and intentionally causing harm: That's the difference between surgeon that refuses to schedule operations and one that intentionally delays the strike to walk out mid operation to maximize the harm. I used an extreme example because nothing I saw in vice's position on how the cause should have been decided appeared to exclude it.

But absolutely I agree that destroying millions of dollars in equipment and supplies is not equivalent to killing people, but the examples share an underlying principle of sabotage.

[Ekaros]

There is difference of losing money because employer can't sell something for duration or some sort of expected stoppage happens. And pure waste of material and possibly equipment.

Imagine if software developers took a service down for maintenance and then just decided to strike at that moment. Or maybe unloaded some servers from truck and then left them outside in rain.