> Even without the explicit statement, isn't this implied by the action
> of a general strike? Strikes are not protests; their essence is to
> disrupt the formation and movement of capital. And if a strike is to
> be general, then that means *everyone* has to have the option of
> striking. Whole Foods explicitly denied its workers that option, and
> so they were targeted. Seems pretty simple to me.
Sure, and thanks to Voyou for spelling it out. But I'm confused about how Whole Foods 'denying its workers the option' prevents a strike. Now I must admit I don't know Oakland's local customs, but down here a strike involves a collective refusal to work, and management usually does not approve. When we depend on the boss's permission, we call it 'annual leave'.
Mike