If you work a job in which someone would actively be harmed (e.g. loss of freedom or physical harm) by you failing to go to work, what is the consensus on the proper way to participate in a general strike?
If you work a job in which someone would actively be harmed (e.g. loss of freedom or physical harm) by you failing to go to work, what is the consensus on the proper way to participate in a general strike?
I also mulled this over, as I work with people experiencing homelessness, and decided I’m still going to work, but will make sure not to spend any money that day. Also my son will still go to school
I work in EMS. I will be at work on Friday. I want to participate in the general strike, but if someone in my community dies or has a worse outcome because my ambulance isn’t in service then I feel like it is defeating the purpose of a general strike which has the ultimate goal of helping the general public. I have just determined to not spend any money and to express solidarity with anyone who is participating or speak out if I hear any negativity towards the strike.
I also work in an EMS-adjacent field (NEMT), and the work we do genuinely helps people in need. I would be doing a major disservice to my community by not going into work. I will only be spending the bare minimum needed to get myself to and from work, as that’s the best I can conscientiously do right now.
There’s a general strike on Friday? I’ll try to participate. I had no idea.
You could also become very necessary in the event it all goes wahoonie-shaped.
The idea is to slow or stop economic activity, so it’s most effective when it’s those who work in business or industry. Jobs helping the community are … helping the community, which is also a value to uphold. So yeah not spending any money is still contributing to the goal.