Summary
A 24-hour general strike in Greece on Wednesday shut down transport, schools, and government offices as workers protested high living costs.
Unions are demanding a 10% pay raise and the return of holiday bonuses cut during Greece’s financial crisis.
They accuse Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of not doing enough to tackle inflation, despite recent minimum wage increases.
Hospitals operated on emergency staff, while protests and marches were planned.
Many say wages have not kept up with the rising costs of energy, food, and rent.
deleted by creator
That’s so much smarter than voting for far right shitstains to ‘protest’. Would love to see this all over Europe instead of the rise of fascism.
The one tool Americans refuse to use.
Apparently we haven’t been fucked enough yet. I’m honestly curious how low we will go. I suspect there is no bottom and Americans are just flesh bags trained to seek out meat grinders.
Union leaders don’t want to risk their position and union by breaking the law. American law highly restricts when a strike can happen. The punishment for companies is generally a fine or a do over for things like a ballot. Punishment for a Union is often the dissolution of the Union.
Basically we need to completely rebuild the ideology around unions. Right now if a union were to strike illegally, get dissolved, stay on strike, and then prevent scabs from entering; they would be beaten, arrested, and ridiculed by fellow workers. We won’t ever see a large strike in the US until workers remember that they are the de facto source of wealth and start acting like it.
The first problem is the polarisation. If people that are perceived to be Democrats call out a general strike, 50 percent won’t participate. Vice versa if perceived GOP does this. The polarisation and politicisation of every topic is what stops you from organising effectively.
Ha, like either of them would ever do that
It’s not a both-sides thing. The right hates the left for identitarian reasons. We are the “other” and must always be hated. If the left takes a position, the right will oppose it, even if they supported it first. The left hates the right for their ideological reasons that would be largely irrelevant if the right actually called a general strike.
Sorry I did not mean to both-side it. I am well aware that a union push will never come from the GOP. The main point was that because everything has become politicized there are no independent voices that can call for a national strike. If you want to dive deeper into why all is politicised you obviously come back to the conservative sphere (FOX, etc), so this is definitely not a both sides are bad argument.
…which is very much by design. The “Ownership Class” have understood the value of “Targeted Divide and Conquer” for a while now. A line from Metallica’s Master of Puppets comes to mind: Keep them tired it makes them well.
This is also very evident in the reactions to the election. Trump and the GOP were all screaming and hollering about election fraud right up until it looked like they wound win. Then crickets. Everyone is in only when their own team is winning.
Vice versa if perceived GOP does this.
That logic really falls apparent when you consider that GOP is the one pushing unions out.
You make it sound like both parties have a strategy to help the workers… no… only one does.
Part of one at best. Certainly not its leadership.
The first problem is people looking for problems, instead of signing up or lending support. You are the real problem.
be in the system to change the system.
Tell that to the Democrat Governor in NC who’s surrounded by wolves, gridlocking the whole state to a standstill year to year so nobody gets what they want.
Our system is part of the problem, if not Subject A.
I understand troubleshooting as someone who has worked as a project manager.
First, you have to have a project to start troubleshooting it.
I can simultaneously lend support and analyze why the probability of success is quite small. Anyway, this is an anonymous forum. Start a petition and I will sign it with my name.
No, I mean real support. Yes, we will need people to analyze and strategize but that comes after we see movement. You can pre-empt some of the stuff and formulate some arguments, but that shouldn’t be your opening line.
The thing we need now is people to call for one. I’m trying but I get so much push back its been difficult to not get discouraged.
If you want to show support, the thing that would help the most is another voice that keeps the idea of a strike in the discussion. Which discussion? All of them.
Good luck.
Refuse? This was called by unions. In the US, that kind of union activity is illegal. What system do you think we can use in the US to call for a general strike that enough people would 1) be aware of the strike 2) agree with the need for a strike and 3) be able to participate without harming their livelihoods? Cause in Greece, the answer for all three was unions. Here in the states… I don’t know if anything is setup for that. Even reaching enough people to begin with would be tough.
Like, be rightly angry at the laws in the US that make this nigh impossible, maybe raise awareness, but don’t blame the damn victims.
Do you think the strikes that got us workers rights in the first place were legal at their time?
They were attacked by the oligarchy, sometimes with dozens of people killed.
You dont get anything done against an oligarchy if you play by their rules.
People forget that strikes are a civil option to the alternative.
Unions aren’t the sole proprietor of the strike. It’s so disheartening to realize over and over again people like yourself have no imagination. No heart. No ingenuity and have to be constantly shown what is possible.
Hey. You’re the one shoveling disheartening shit, not me. Pretending a general strike would be easy here in the states is one of the other reasons why it’s so fucking hard to do. Every time someone half-asses one, people buy into the hype, and then nothing happens makes it less likely for an actual general strike to happen. It’s a logistical nightmare that could only work if you got unions to buy-in, and that would require coordinating contract expirations to coincide around the time you want the strike to happen, since unions in the states can’t legally go on a solidarity strike. I’m definitely not saying it’s impossible, but crying that it’s actually really easy and the fact that America hasn’t done it is because we all actually like the taste of boot is the actual demotivating opinion to shovel.
No, it will work if we get your buy in, but youre already 3d chessing yourself out of it. Like, we’ve tried nothing and we are all out of ideas. Literally.
Self fulfilling prophecy.
Ok, I presume you’re American since you know how easy it’d be.
How far along are you in your plan for the general strike?
Considering everyone I talk to has given up just like the OP, not very far. Hey, it doesn’t have to be that way. You could commit to it right now and spread the word. I’m just one guy who will keep advocating. You could too. If I’m mathing correctly, that would double my efforts.
Sorry, I’m not American.
But you’re just starting now? How would you know how easy it is or isn’t already?
American billionaires want self driving cars specifically because they can’t strike.
No, but they can burn…
self driving cars specifically because they can’t strike.
Unless it’s pedestrians, the backs of trucks, road signs, irregular barriers, animals…
But the people who build and maintain the roads can.
unless you’re talking about tow truck drivers it will take a while for maintenance problems to catch up with the strike. This is, in my mind, why billionaires hate trains the most.
Well, based on the recent election results, I suspect there’s literally no limit to how low Americans will go.
Badwater Basin? Lower.
Lake Assal? Lower.
Dead Sea? Lower.
The canyon under the Denman Glacier? Lower.
Challenger Deep? Lower.
TO THE DEPTHS OF HELL‽
Lower.
Bonus Panel: do the rising sea levels from anthropogenic climate change give us a bit of an advantage?
We don’t refuse I think it’s just too hard to coordinate.
I’ll take any day off work. I’m looking for excuses!
It’s not like people need to even get into the streets. Everyone just coordinate to call in sick one day. Just one day to show yourselves the power you have, then go from there.
What the fuck are you talking about? Let me guess, you work at Taco Bell?
Dude. Any one of the European countries doing this is as small as one of our states. Even the largest ones aren’t the same size and scale as our largest ones. Then each state is diverse to a suprising level and has individual groups, laws and viewpoints that affect them all differently. And that’s all ignoring the politics of everything. And ignoring that Americans have zero safety nets for when they are out of work for something like a strike. Most don’t have enough food or money saved to survive a strike. You are very obviously ignorant of life here, whether you live here or not. A nationwide general strike is impossible here. When I see a coordinated strike across all of europe, you might have a point. And if a general strike is decided here I will be among the first to sign up. But until then you are too ignorant of the states and their people to make any assertion as to what is possible here.
I’m not ignorant. I know there are too many people like you who refuse to participate because they have no faith in themselves or others. I will now and forevermore count you as opposition. It’s your short sightedness that will prevent meaningful change.
Lol now and forevermore. Can you be any more dramatic? I’m not being short sighted, I’m being realistic. And even if I am I can turn stupid sentiments like that around and say it’s your inaction that prevents it. If you think it’s so possible and easy and you have the know how, then get it moving. Or are you not going to do shit but bitch on the internet either? I’ll sign up when you have a date and meaningful involvement and I’ll happily eat my words and apologize and admit short sightedness that I thought was just a realistic take. I’m not opposed to strikes, I just think a general strike across all industries across all 50 states is so unfathomably complex as to be practically impossible. I don’t think you could even get lip service to one let alone active participation. There are too many hurdles and logistic issues and not enough discomfort across all people to spur us over them on that all 50 states level.
Disregarding clinicallydepressedpoochie’s weird blend of a hero complex and defeatist puritanism, the concept of one big union organizing strikes across trades and states, while never really successful, did play a significant part in galvanizing workers and popularizing unions. Even in smaller countries where general strikes are more common, they remain isolated events, but they do a lot to promote the potential unions have in giving workers a voice, and grow unions’ ranks by increasing enrollment.
Thanks for a level headed comment and that link. I’ll read it more in depth later. I’m all for unions, I wish my particular sector of industry had more unions because we get fucked pretty hard. I’d be interested in joining if there was one for what I did. Convincing others might be difficult though because many don’t see our treatment as poor for some reason. (Contast overtime, on-call, and burnout levels of work are standard practice)
There’s good reason for that, outside of a few industries, American unions were pretty comprehensively dismantled by the likes of Reagan. We’re resilient creatures, we’ll tolerate a lot before burning out, but people will also demand better conditions if they’re shown they can have a say. We just don’t have many contemporary examples of workers wielding that kind of power in the states. The guilds in the movie industry are a steadfast counterexample, though, and united auto workers have been showing some muscle recently. There’s no denying it’s a really tough battle, but people will fight back if they’re given some hope.
Yeah that’s a good point. I do cheer those groups on and supoort them when I can.
Cost of housing seem to be the primary issue plaguing the world. Even in china the real estate market is fucked… but they have too much in locations people are not.
It’s almost as if a lot of societal rules (that are mostly needed) create an unfree Market causing shortages… and governments refusing to acknowledge that they should be organising it and not leaving it to “the market” are the cause of the issue.
Organizing means organizing, not building all houses themselves.
I’m far from a “the free market solves all!” Type of person, but this is more likely due to government intervention, with zoning laws that restrict the density that can be built in certain areas, rather than a problem with the the free market run amok.
Like it’s insane that nearly 40% of the land in San Fran is zoned for single family. This is government doing, not the free market.
We need more housing to alleviate the problem. But what we also need is a mindset shift of the everyday person that they aren’t getting a 3k sqft house on an acre of land.
There’s one common denominator across international lines. It’s rent seeking capital looking for a free buck. The zoning laws are literally just regulatory capture of that rent seeking mentality. They’re a symptom of the fundamental problem. The one thing too many refuse to see is that this is not a strictly corporate phenomenon. There’s all kinds looking for “passive income.” Rent seeking is the new American dream, as Trump shows. And it’s not exclusive to us.
Can you show me a state that has no zoning laws, or something similar, that is also having an issue with housing prices?
Europe is facing population decline. Houses should get cheaper, not more expensive, and the fact that prices keep rising means that they are artificially inflated.
Alas, it’s not trivial to move houses from deserted villages into booming cities. Plenty of European cities already have anti-speculation and rent controls in place, it’s not really helping.
Quickest and cheapest option would be to expand public transport actually, I think, spread out the pressure, combined with more remote work. Once you’ve got a steady, if overall tiny, de-urbanisation trickle going on urban prices are going to tank.
the second anyone was allowed to use houses as an “investment” to gain wealth we basically guaranteed this. obviously anyone with a lot of money tied up in housees is going to try and make their value go up. once we got multinational billion dollar conglomerates involved it became child’s play for them to make that number go up through infinite methods of varrying complexity carried out by thousands of people working together with billions of dollars behind them.
this problem is inherent to a housing market that people are allowed to speculate on. we just need to make that stop entirely. limit house ownership. no one needs 100 houses. especially not companies. if that results in less rental houses than desired, we need to build more apartments. apartments are different beast, but if the cost of houses are lower then it will be harder to inflate rent if they can afford a house instead. this may result in some people who want to rent a house, but not an apartment, unable to find that. that’s not a big problem. they might just need to rent an apartment instead. certainly it’s much less of a problem then the current state of no one being able to afford housing.
the rich don’t need this vector for growing their wealth. they have enough others and are doing quite alright at it. the world will function just fine without mult billion dollar corporations investing in buying properties for the sole reason that they think they can extract wealth without contributing anything. houses should be for living in, not for extracting wealth.
Hear hear.
We need tax on every home owned beyond the first, getting progressively higher with each one owned. For individuals and especially for corporations.
Ehh…I’d rather a progressive tax system. I.e. tax rate increases with number of units.
Both of my landlords have been small private operators. First one owned a multi-family right behind his house and rented out the whole thing below market rate to friends and family.
Second one was closer to market rate but was the only property he had and landlording was supplementing fixed income.
I’ve got friends planning a long-distance move and renting when they arrive and for the foreseeable future. They own a home here (in a much higher COL area), and know eventually they will probably have to move back (aging relatives).
They recognize that if they sell now, they’ll never be able to buy another house when that time comes, but also think market rate for rent is insane compared to what they pay for mortgage now or rent in their new location.
I don’t think people in either situation should be excessively taxed. There will always be a need for people to rent a home. As such there will always be a need for someone to rent them. But it shouldn’t be a high-profit enterprise.
People who gobble up property and treat landlording as an enterprise or even as a primary source of income, are garbage, and should be punished. People who are trying to keep their house ‘in the family’ but don’t need it for an indefinite period shouldn’t be published.
“Facing” sounds like its a bad thing
"Europe is responsibly decreasing their population "
It is a bad thing, it’s not like they planned it ahead of time and prepared for the consequences of population decline. The entire system is designed around a growing population and if that growth turns negative, so does the government’s budget.
Oh no, the economy!
It doesn’t matter. You have more of everything you need. That’s all that matters.
The total wealth is not an issue, but the distribution of it.
My uncle in France had his retirement lowered to 90€/month. You can buy maybe two weeks of groceries for one person with that.
Thats a social issue. There’s plenty of food. Just need a government to not intentionally starve people.
Less population means even more food for everyone
Where do you think food comes from that having fewer workers means more food for everyone?
Government really should be building housing themselves though and working on the zoning laws to make building easier. Even in a free market the government should be a competitor driving prices down to fair levels.
Measures like rent control don’t work because landlords are greedy. People end up staying in locations that don’t fit them anymore for the rent control, landlords try to chase those tenants away and don’t improve the property, new housing stops being developed and supply/demand get wrecked.
Measures like stimulus and tax rebates for first time buyers tends to increase the cost of real estate as well. It’s called a demand subsidy and generally isn’t a great way to tackle a supply problem. The individual home buyers will be helped at the expense of tax payer money and real estate cost - and the types of homes being bought aren’t necessarily the best use of land either depending.
Restricting companies from bulk purchasing and holding real estate seems like a good idea but again when you remove that new housing, especially multi-tenant housing, stops being built. Supply goes down prices shoot up…unless of course the government is willing to personally finance and build out the supply and keep prices fair.
I kinda agree. But I see the government has a role in the zoning and deciding where and what. Like building bridges and roads, define, assign, possible finance and have commercial parties execute in a well regulated environment
It’s governments that are responsible for a lack of housing: local governments through zoning policy. The homeowners in a given city are politically engaged and they vote to protect their own investment in real estate. Call it NIMBYism if you like but homeowners are never going to voluntarily agree to have their house go down in price. Doing so could put their mortgage underwater and result in losing their home and becoming homeless.
Japan does not have this issue to nearly the same extent because they have structured their governments differently. Zoning laws are set by the national government, not the local one, so problems like this can (and have been) set at the national level.
For other countries to solve their housing problem Japan style would require the national government to take power away from the local governments (and in the case of the US, this would put the federal government in a fight with state governments). It would be an extremely messy fight and probably not work out.
Japan has a worse housing problem
Everyone is congregating in hubs
Unfortunately a one-day strike is not a problem for the system which is why they usually don’t lead to anything. Do an indefinite one and then see.
A one-day is a warning that the people are organized. It’s a shot across the bow.
I’ve seen way too many one-days in Greece to get excited…
Can confirm, they are not even taken seriously. Few are those that do strike.
Public transport pretty much operates as expected for the most part. Liners just push their schedule at 2300, literally just pushing the schedule 2-3 hours ahead. The maritime industry’s union is run by general managers and hypocrites… If you do strike, you are pretty much flagged as you stand out so much. :)
This country is literally a joke.
Love to see it!
Why did they stop?
One reason could be that salaries are so low for the newer generations that even a few days of strike and you will not make the month.
Literally I do not know anyone that pays rent, does not live with their parents and has savings.
Somehow 50% ended up in the capital, which has skyrocketed renting prices. The minimum salary is literally arround 700 euros. You cannot find an actual house that is not a fucking shack under 500, that is not a joke, I am trying to survive in this shithole by myself and I do not see the point.
low salaries lead to people that cannot strike. To be fair, most, do not even consider it as an option due to “nothing will change”… fucking logic
deleted by creator
