Milei attacks right to strike

[Redpossum]

Ataque nada libertario al derecho de huelga | Otro DNU de Milei contra normas laborales de carácter constitucional

La norma extiende a una multitud de actividades las restricciones de huelga, al considerarlas "esenciales" o "de importancia trascendental", lo cual las obligaría a prestar el 75 o el 50% de los servicios en días de paro

www-pagina12-com-ar.translate.goog

The usual Google Translate deal, banner is in Castellano and story will initially appear in that tongue, but wait a few seconds and it will change to English.

This is almost surreal.
The DNU process has been abused before, but this is a new low, attempting to abolish by decree a basic constitutional right.

 

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

To paraphrase George Orwell - We are all free, some of us are just more free than others....

 

[antipodean]

"Attacks" the right to strike to some by protecting the right to movement and work of others... ?

Pretty similar to the minimum service rules that exist in most if not all European social-democracies, including strike prone countries like France, Spain and Italy.

 

[LuckyLuke]

There's a difference between private and public employee strikes. Limiting public essential services strikes, whose salary is based on approved government budgets and finance committee calendars is probably reasonable. There are many states in the US that prohibit the same.

However, extending that prohibition to private companies with government contracts is likely to be highly contentious. What a mess...

 

[cortazar]

Does anyone know what happened to this DNU 340/25? I read parts of it last week, but when I returned to it I found that it is all about Maritime deregulation now.

I'd assume I was just confused but all the articles about this news reference the same number.

"Attacks" the right to strike to some by protecting the right to movement and work of others... ?

Pretty similar to the minimum service rules that exist in most if not all European social-democracies, including strike prone countries like France, Spain and Italy.

From memory, I recall that the decree applied to both public and private sectors, and that the category of "transcendental importance" included, among others, hospitality, mining, and food service. If all the frontline workers at a Mostaza went on strike, would that also violate the rights to movement and work?

I assume that your comment, though, is about specifically transportation, right? I'm genuinely curious: where should these protections of "right to movement" start? If the most flagrant violation is complete restriction of all emigration, what is the minimum violation?

In any case, protection for some always inhibits the action of others. In this (phantom?) DNU, workers lose negotiating power and the employing organization gains it. In the case of private sector, I'm not sure why I should favor one side or the other. I do agree with @LuckyLuke that public-sector employees are a different category.

 

[Redpossum]

Three people are sitting at a table - a CEO, a worker, and a union rep. On the table are 10 cookies. The CEO takes 9 of them and says to the worker, "watch out for that union guy, he wants your cookie".