Talk:Wildcat strike

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organized Labour High‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2020 and 11 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ghodsonuo. Peer reviewers: KilianJones13, Sedonap.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unions

This isn't anything about the article, but maybe someone could answer this question for me. What's the point of a union if they aren't going to back you up when you strike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.2.52.28 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal" ?

What exactly is meant by saying wildcat strikes are illegal (in the US) ? Is it just that one can be fired for participating in them? In that case, it's not illegal in the criminal sense. Or is an 'illegal strike' a specific term? Archdiamond (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a very interesting question. They are described as illegal because they are an 'unfair labor practice' under the Wagner Act (text). But reading through the law, I don't see criminal penalties following from these practices. And indeed, they are in the same category as violations by employers, which are also not usually classified as "illegal" or "criminal", but instead as unauthorized or unfair. Now, there may be subsequent court cases under which these strikes are called "illegal" by judges citing the Wagner Act. I don't see evidence of that at the URL for the citation provided, but we may be able to find further information on these court cases somewhere else. groupuscule (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

libcom.org

Is libcom.org an unreliable source? All refs and links to that site have been removed. See diff. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wildcat strike action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100909143846/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2010/09/03/labor_day_in_hell?page=0,13 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/03/labor_day_in_hell?page=0,13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question of bias

During a peer review process of changes made to articles during our class, there was a concern raised that a pre-existing statement in the article was biased because it did not make mention of an obligation that unions have to employers. The statement in question is: "Some strikes that begin as wildcat actions, such as the Memphis Sanitation Strike and Baltimore municipal strike of 1974, are later supported by their respective unions' leadership (who then begin fulfilling their obligation to collectively bargain for their worker-members)."

However, I disagree with the notion that union leaders have an obligation to employers beyond what is dictated by the law. Unions are not brokers between labor and employer, but representatives of labor that are obligated only to pursue labor’s best interest. Their job is not to strike a balance between what is most beneficial to the employer and the employee - that’s just the product of negotiations, and is why unions negotiate with employers (and are not empowered to make a final decision on their own). Were this in reference to the NLRB, I could agree that there would be an omission in describing the obligation towards workers but not towards employers. For these reasons, I have declined to edit the above statement. Ghodsonuo (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The section on the history of wildcat strikes in America is severely biased, treating it as fact that unions betrayed the working class after WWII. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]