Paul Z writes: >>It gets tiring to read that a lockout is labeled a strike!<<
I wrote: >> isn't it a strike? I thought that the elite oil workers were in alliance with the managers against Chavez. If so, it's either a combined strike/lockout (with the lockout aimed at those workers who don't want to strike against Chavez) or a simple strike (with the management seen as striking). <<
Michael Perelman writes: >Jim's approach depends on defining managers as workers.<
No it isn't. Only my second interpretation can be seen in this way. In any event, since it's common to talk about "capital strike," I can't see why managers can't go on strike, too.
Of course, it's a waste of time to quibble about the meaning of words. What's important is that there's an alliance between elite oil workers and their managers against Chavez. It's not like the Westcoast longshore lockout of recent memory, in which it was clearly management and owners locking out workers.
Jim
