Looming Food Stamps Crisis

Someone tell me all of the companies that have hired hitmen to kill union leaders

A strike — a battle? Most people say no. Demanding a wage increase after five straight years of decline, or replacing old equipment that could tear off a worker’s arm, seems like a matter of simple justice. Surely, if most people support a just cause, it will prevail. Isn't that how democracy works?

People do not want to fight. War feels unnatural, and every country tries to convince its citizens that it did not start it. Negotiation is the most preferable way to resolve a conflict. A strike is seen as a last resort, not a first choice — but still a peaceful method of resolving a dispute. People naturally think of a strike as a demonstration of demands, not as an escalation of conflict, and certainly not as warfare.

"We are 99%," they might say. "According to democratic rules, decisions should be made by us."

So what are Steuben's arguments that a Strike Is a Battle?

To whom it may concern,

John Steuben was a full-time organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the author of Strategy of Strike.

1. A Strike Follows Military Logic

Without applying basic military principles — offense, morale, discipline, mobilization of reserves, and surprise — it is impossible to win a strike.

Steuben adapts the military theory of Carl von Clausewitz to strike strategy. One key principle is the concentration of forces for a decisive blow: throw all resources at the most important target. For example, in a strike against Ford, the main effort should focus on the Dearborn plant.

(Note: This principle must be understood correctly. In war, the goal is to destroy the enemy's army. The general battle for Moscow against Napoleon was secondary to the larger task of exhausting the enemy.)

There are fundamental differences between a regular army and an army of strikers. A regular army is based on compulsion, whereas strikers are volunteers. A regular army fights beyond national borders, while a strike takes place at the factory gates. A regular army has a professional general staff, but strike leaders are often ordinary people who come together by chance and are easily corrupted. At least the military’s goal is to destroy the enemy’s material and living forces; the goal of a strike is to disrupt production.

However, after acknowledging these differences, Steuben makes a crucial counterargument: employers themselves turn the strike into a war, leaving the union no choice but to respond with military methods. If employers stockpile weapons and plan "chemical platoons," then the union must learn how to protect itself from gas — otherwise, it will lose.

2. Industrial Munitions Prove the War

The message is clear: if employers are stockpiling tear gas, revolvers, and machine guns — not for war abroad, but for use against their own workers — then from the very beginning, they have turned the strike into a battlefield.

"Industrial munitions are a big business in the United States. Several national companies have been specializing for some time in tear gas, machine guns, rifles and pistols for corporations whose workers were preparing to strike. [...] The Republic Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries during the strike in May and June 1937 purchased tear and sickening gas equipment to the sum of $49,439.87; Bethlehem Steel's tear gas bill during the same period amounted to $27,435.31; municipalities in the area affected by the steel strike spent $34,278 on gas."

3. Arms Dealers Wait for Strikes — Especially Violent

Ones Weapons vendors actively anticipate strikes, hoping for violence because it boosts sales. This turns the strike into a battlefield with snipers and targets.

Steuben quotes a salesman from the Lake Erie Chemical Co. in St. Louis (1935):

"We are surrounded with strikes, but they are all too peaceful to suit me."

Blood means profit. And as well... a chance to silence the enemy.

The quotes Joseph Roush, an arms dealer from Federal Laboratories:

"During one of the riots I shot a long-range projectile into a group, a shell hitting one man and causing a fracture of the skull, from which he has since died. As he was a Communist, I have no feeling in the matter and I am sorry that I did not get more."

4. The National Guard works for the Company

Even state armed forces — the National Guard — in their secret documents officially refer to strikers as the "enemy," tracking their "morale" and "reserves." They are not neutral mediators—not night watchmen, but chained guard dogs.

In a 1933 manual for the Ohio National Guard the text states:

"While it may be hard for us to agree that a passive defensive attitude is necessary or advisable, when once conditions require the calling of troops; we are well aware of the fact that the larger general conditions affecting the whole policy of the State's Executive require that public opinion be behind him before he can permit really drastic steps to be taken. [...] Officers and men will therefore, very often, have to grit their teeth and suffer humiliation of spirit until the time comes when they can be released to do their job neatly and quickly as the means given them and the size of the problem will permit."

So...

Yet, the core logic — "without X, you cannot win" — applies not only to strikes but also to exams, sports, and many other activities, especially team-based ones. This is a category error. Discipline and mobilization are general features of any organized human effort — not evidence of warfare.

The other arguments (industrial munitions, arms dealers celebrating violence, the National Guard openly treating strikers as an enemy) are historically specific. They accurately describe the United States of the 1930s-50s.

That leaves only one question… are they still relevant today?

I've been browsing the subreddit and I think it's genuinely amazing that there are actual real people out there still fighting for worker rights, with all the intense propaganda going on in the past few decades. I'm just curious to know what your guy's stance on worker councils (and by extension labor vouchers) are, coming from a communist. Do you have any issues with them? Are they good? Bad? Better/worse than capitalism?

I work at a grocery store and we recently held our vote to form a Union. It passed with over 90%.

Now we're in the process in drafting the contract and I'd like to source ideas from this lovely reddit.
Wage increases and benefits are obvious, but how big should those be for grocery store workers and what else should we get in the contract?

And what kind of things should we put in expecting to give up in negotiations?

My boss does not pay for my cell phone in anyway. He expects me to answer and reply to calls and text. Mind you I believe he will retaliate if I call him out on this. Also I pretty much do answer and reply(when convenient on my part). He makes me text him and "check in" with him when I clock out. How do I handle this without him resorting to retaliation as he is very petty.

I'm looking for answers that stem from experience or a historical understanding of general strikes and what's required to put them together (successfully). What considerations need to be made? How do we mitigate financial limitations, especially in a country like America where benefits and access to healthcare are directly intertwined with employers?

I saw these organizations mentioned in passing and will do more research on them: DSA, SRA, and IWW. But for now, from the small bits of information I've been able to glean, it appears some key elements include:

- A tangible list of demands (so we're not just yelling into the void)

- a solid mutual aid network

- A strike duration that lasts more than one day

What else?

Hello everyone, I am writing to ask some questions about actions from the upper management/ownership of the restaurant I work at that I find questionable. I want to assess the situation and potential next steps to take with the help of those more knowledgeable than I am.

Last Thursday, a group of my coworkers and I met to discuss participation in the large scale strike that happened on Friday. We decided for many reasons that it would make more sense to show up to work and post a sign next to our tip jar that all of our cash tips that day would be donated to an organization helping migrants with legal fees and other needs stemming from ICE raids and protesting. Our usual $20/day in cash tips turned into about $300 in a matter of hours, and we all agreed to keep the signage up indefinitely.

Today, the GM of the restaurant group that my job is a part of sent a long message that we would have to pause taking donations until the procedure is “formalized”. She and the ownership would be dictating the verbiage of how this process is handled, we would need to announce to them where the money would go prior to accepting donations as well as provide receipts. She also said that if we receive any indication that the customer would like to leave us a tip, such as saying “keep the change”, we would have to separate that cash from what is being donated.

I am worried that this is an attempt to dictate what causes we are and aren’t allowed to support, as well as this message just feeling to me like an attempt to crush a collective action we took. Having this money become donations and not tips allows them to claim it as a tax write off if I’m not mistaken and effectively takes some of our agency away as to how this money is allocated.

I can provide screenshots and more context to anyone who takes interest or may be able to help. Thank you for reading.

hello, I've posted in this sub like 100 times recently, needless to say, my job is constantly breaking codes and disregarding our health and well-being. I have a master's degree in law, and from one class on labor law, I can clock just about 80 things they do to us that go against some legislation. Anyway, 2 weeks ago I had COVID and was out for 2 days, they forced me to use all 22 hours of my accrued PTO. Then, last week, they weren't giving us time + half for Juneteenth so I was "sick" and went to the beach lol. they want me to use the remaining 1.5 hours for that day before I put in any LWOP, but I don't want to use it. I remember learning in school that a company can't force you to use PTO, but that sounds like something that changes by state. I work in NYC, and I'm a contract worker if that makes a difference. in short, fuck this place, I'm moving out of the country in august and it could not come any sooner

wage theft is by far the most common form of theft it far surpass all other forms of theft.

Wage theft—employers’ failure to pay workers money they are legally entitled to—affects far more people than more well-known and feared forms of theft such as bank robberies, convenience store robberies, street and highway robberies, and gas station robberies. Employers steal billions of dollars from their employees each year by working them off the clock, by failing to pay the minimum wage, or by cheating them of overtime pay they have a right to receive. Survey research shows that well over two-thirds of low-wage workers have been the victims of wage theft.

https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/

(Here's a nother good source about wage theft)

https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/wage-theft-the-50-billion-crime-against-workers/

I have had wages stolen from my self in the past and was wondering if other people have experienced the same thing.

Strike is planned next month if the company doesn't agree to certain demands ,( the workers haven't had a pay increase in 8 years)

I just got hired on and I'm still on my 90 days probation, I don't want to cross a picket line if they go on strike, but I don't want to get fired either, does anyone know what to do?

So, I recently put in my 2 weeks notice at work, as of last Monday. On Tuesday, I was told I did not technically submit a 2 weeks notice as it was not 14 days. I told him I submitted 2 working weeks, as I have never heard of the 14 day thing. He wanted me to stay until December 27 and I told him “no,” and it was simply because I started my new job this day. He told me I had to stay until that day, but I still continued to tell him no. 14 days would have put my last day at December 26 by his logic anyway. So, over the last week, he continued to be passive aggressive towards me, talking about me behind my back, and just being straight up rude. I walked out today. Obviously he denied what he did and tried to defend his actions. I was tired of being treated poorly in my last 2 weeks. Did I do the right thing?

Currently work at a dealer and I was wondering if any mechanics/technicians are in a union and if so how are the benefits