In the first comment you’re asserting that for you to acknowledge his support for a general strike as a “call” for one, he would have to be organizing it. I appreciate you’ve walked that back to him being connected to the organizers, but you’re just assuming he’s not and rejecting worker/administration solidarity on those grounds.
In the US, the law surrounding this is predictably draconian - but in the effort of not spending pages about the technicalities, an elected official serving the public trust is even more explicitly bound to not organize a labor strike. If it’s a valid excuse you’re willing to accept for the union leaders, why is it not an excuse for him as well? While unions like UAW cannot call for a general strike because of the NLRA/NLRB, a politician can call for one without explicitly organizing it and skirt the regulations thereof.
He is doing what he can publicly, and only arguably within the bounds of the law. It might be worth examining why you aren’t supportive here, especially given that in other recent comments you’ve (edit: arguably) called for a major public figure to rally a general strike. That’s what he’s doing here, but… why is that not good enough for you?
In the first comment you’re asserting that for you to acknowledge his support for a general strike as a “call” for one, he would have to be organizing it. I appreciate you’ve walked that back to him being connected to the organizers, but you’re just assuming he’s not and rejecting worker/administration solidarity on those grounds.
In the US, the law surrounding this is predictably draconian - but in the effort of not spending pages about the technicalities, an elected official serving the public trust is even more explicitly bound to not organize a labor strike. If it’s a valid excuse you’re willing to accept for the union leaders, why is it not an excuse for him as well? While unions like UAW cannot call for a general strike because of the NLRA/NLRB, a politician can call for one without explicitly organizing it and skirt the regulations thereof.
He is doing what he can publicly, and only arguably within the bounds of the law. It might be worth examining why you aren’t supportive here, especially given that in other recent comments you’ve (edit: arguably) called for a major public figure to rally a general strike. That’s what he’s doing here, but… why is that not good enough for you?