• hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    That’s cool but bus drivers have WAY MORE leverage than that. Full strike would have much greater effect, and leaving buses to block the traffic would be full stop for most traffic

    • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      A full strike directly impacts the public diminishing their support. It’s easier for citizens to support a fair-strike because it doesn’t impact their wallets. Not that they should - but some of the public will blame the drivers if transit just stops and they now can’t get to work.

      Simply refusing to take fares while maintaining services directly impacts the transit company by maintaining operating costs and cutting off their income, while allowing the public to continue going about their day.


      Leaving the busses in traffic just pisses everyone off and potentially bridges into personal liability for the drivers.

      Plus they’ll just tow them out of the way.

      • alapakala@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        not if you’re blocking the suites exits and entries.
        imagine the embarrassment it would form if the neighborhood knew the chief of the bus company fucked the city, and couldn’t travel.

    • Brewchin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 days ago

      They do, but malicious compliance while not impacting regular users is a smart alternative to the nuclear option. Why use all your powder on the first shot if this method might work.