Talk:Wildcat strike

message: 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)
thread_title: Unions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Illegal" ? 

message: 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)
thread_title: libcom.org

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wildcat strike action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question of bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV