So is everyone avoiding the term "strike" because they don't want to create legal problems with the players' union (this is obviously a wildcat strike -- a wildcat "solidarity strike" if you want to get technical) https://twitter.com/NYTSports/status/1298805947616440325

I want to be picky about this because "boycotts" and "strikes" are pretty fundamentally different and the difference matters -- people need to get that boycotts, though important, aren't nearly as effective as strikes and you don't get the same brownie points for being in one

The line can be fuzzy but a strike means you withhold your *labor* and a boycott means you withhold your *money*

Strikes are carried out by *workers* and boycotts are carried out by *customers*

This doesn't cover everything

Like I agree that a rent strike counts as a strike, and so do the various strikes by, say, transit riders (where you actually don't go to work, as a group, because you haven't been given a safe and affordable way to get there)

I would say that the broader definition is that a strike is refusing to perform an action for which there is an obligation

A boycott is refusing to perform an action seen as voluntary

NBA players who don't play games are striking, NBA fans who don't come to games are boycotting

The reason there is an important moral difference here is that the connotation of a strike is that if the strike fails you will be punished

You will be fired or evicted or even arrested

By contrast when a boycott fails, the boycotters just go back to business as usual

This is why boycotts are kind of bullshit much of the time, and need a lot of work to actually be effective

(The famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, which was a boycott and not a strike because they couldn't afford to actually not go to work the whole time, took LOTS of organizing)

The whole thing is that a strike and a boycott pull in opposite directions

The point of a strike is for the person providing a service to tell their customers "This service is essential, you need me"

The point of a boycott is the *customer* saying "I *don't* need you"

Which means if the service actually is that important and essential -- which it often is, if the company is doing something harmful enough to be worth boycotting -- boycotting is fucking hard

The segregated buses in Montgomery sucked because almost everyone not rich enough to drive did, in fact, *have* to take the bus and the daily humiliation of being forced to move for white riders was something most working-class Black people *had* to just deal with

So trying to protest that by having a huge chunk of their customer base refuse to take the bus at all during a long enough period of time to hurt their budget was really risky, and painful, and expensive

Lots of people giving their time and money to run an informal taxi/carpool service (the "Freedom Riders")

Extreme social pressure from the community to demand that everyone keep on doing it and not "cheat" (centered mostly around the church)

A boycott that's actually pretty easy for you to do that doesn't affect your life much is... probably a boycott that isn't gonna do jack shit

The company already wrote people like you off as part of the general churn of free-market competition

Hence why all the people who said they were going to stop eating at Chick-Fil-A didn't come to much in the end

They were already competing with a bunch of other fast food brands, they knew you were just one demo they were advertising to among many, it was a blip

Customers as a class don't really have that much power, Marxism 101 is that power is wielded by *workers* and that "consumer power" is a lie

Solidarity among customers is pretty damn rare

Like the Montgomery Bus Line actually depended on a large working-class Black population that was their customer base

In other circumstances they could've just been like "We're the racist bus company, that's our brand!"

All the people going "Well then I'LL eat at Chick-Fil-A ALL THE TIME to own the libs"