Is it a misuse of language, by governments, to link strike to no labour?

[trokanmariel33]

When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?

[MajorHoy]

When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?

If a person's job is to perform manual labor and said person refuses to do their job but has not formally quit that job, what else would you call it?

[trokanmariel33]

If a person's job is to perform manual labor and said person refuses to do their job but has not formally quit that job, what else would you call it?

I would call it nothing.

[CaptCleghorn]

When governments apply the term strike, to the refusal to perform manual labour, is this a misappropriation of language?

Use of particular terminology, especially in situation which have a huge political slant, exact wording and phraseology serves dual purposes. One is to explain a situation while the other is to put a certain slant on it. I may not agree with this tactic in every case, but it can be a powerful persuasive tool. My advice is to ALWAYS consider the source to doscover what else may be part of their message or statement.

[Kirby101]

I need context.

[trokanmariel33]

I need context.

Country to country, government to government, the term strike is universally applied to insinuate that something is being attacked, as and when people don't do manual labour

[Kirby101]

Labor uses the term strike when they stop work. It's a universal term, not used only by governments.

"The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships.[".

[trokanmariel33]

Labor uses the term strike when they stop work. It's a universal term, not used only by governments.

"The use of the English word "strike" to describe a work protest was first seen in 1768, when sailors, in support of demonstrations in London, "struck" or removed the topgallant sails of merchant ships at port, thus crippling the ships.[".

It is a universal term, I agree, however, it's also a misappropriation of language

[trokanmariel33]

Use of particular terminology, especially in situation which have a huge political slant, exact wording and phraseology serves dual purposes. One is to explain a situation while the other is to put a certain slant on it. I may not agree with this tactic in every case, but it can be a powerful persuasive tool. My advice is to ALWAYS consider the source to doscover what else may be part of their message or statement.

In the case of strike, the situation is never-changing. The role and application of strike is to falsely insinuate being attacked by a group of people, who are doing no such thing.

[JackDaw]

In the case of strike, the situation is never-changing. The role and application of strike is to falsely insinuate being attacked by a group of people, who are doing no such thing.

You are completely ignoring babyblob’s point that many English words have several meanings. That is just factual. The word “set”, for example, has over 20 different meanings.

If you look up the word “strike” in any reputable English Dictionary…say Chambers or the Oxford Dictionary…it will list “withdrawal of Labour” as one of the standard meanings.

The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (version published in 1999) lists no fewer than 18 different meanings for the word strike…with “hit” being the most common meaning, with “organised withdrawal of labour” being 13th listed meaning. (i.e. it’s a valid meaning but less common.)

And it’s certainly not a “misappropriation”! (Check the phrase in any reputable English dictionary…misappropriation means theft, it does not mean “use inappropriately”.)

[trokanmariel33]

You are completely ignoring babyblob’s point that many English words have several meanings. That is just factual. The word “set”, for example, has over 20 different meanings.

If you look up the word “strike” in any reputable English Dictionary…say Chambers or the Oxford Dictionary…it will list “withdrawal of Labour” as one of the standard meanings.

The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (version published in 1999) lists no fewer than 18 different meanings for the word strike…with “hit” being the most common meaning, with “organised withdrawal of labour” being 13th listed meaning. (i.e. it’s a valid meaning but less common.)

And it’s certainly not a “misappropriation”! (Check the phrase in any reputable English dictionary…misappropriation means theft, it does not mean “use inappropriately”.)

The withdrawal of labour context of the application of strike is a misappropriation, or is an inaccurate use of the term, in regards to ethics

[JackDaw]

The withdrawal of labour context of the application of strike is a misappropriation, or is an inaccurate use of the term, in regards to ethics

Lol.

What is the point of starting a thread about the meaning of a particular word if you are going to ignore the standard dictionary definitions listed for that word??

[babyblob]

The withdrawal of labour context of the application of strike is a misappropriation, or is an inaccurate use of the term, in regards to ethics

Its not a matter of ethics dude. It is a matter that in several Dictionaries mention "withdrawal of labour” as a meaning of the word strike. So at this point you are ignoring this to keep making some point that is not valid or you are just trolling. Either way this is the dumbest thing in the world.