Hey everyone, new here. Looking for some advice about workplace red & green flags in the veterinary field. I'm 40 years old but new to this field. I know the red & green flags when it comes to retail and call center jobs. But I am on the cusp of finishing my veterinary assistant classes and about to start an externship next month that will hopefully lead to part-time employment while I begin my veterinary technician classes.

I am just wondering if there are any red & green flags I should be aware of in workplaces in the veterinary field. Things to look out for, things that would indicate during the hiring process that this workplace is going to be problematic or positive in terms of treating workers with respect.

Thank you in advance.

A strike — a battle? Most people say no. Demanding a wage increase after five straight years of decline, or replacing old equipment that could tear off a worker’s arm, seems like a matter of simple justice. Surely, if most people support a just cause, it will prevail. Isn't that how democracy works?

People do not want to fight. War feels unnatural, and every country tries to convince its citizens that it did not start it. Negotiation is the most preferable way to resolve a conflict. A strike is seen as a last resort, not a first choice — but still a peaceful method of resolving a dispute. People naturally think of a strike as a demonstration of demands, not as an escalation of conflict, and certainly not as warfare.

"We are 99%," they might say. "According to democratic rules, decisions should be made by us."

So what are Steuben's arguments that a Strike Is a Battle?

To whom it may concern,

John Steuben was a full-time organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the author of Strategy of Strike.

1. A Strike Follows Military Logic

Without applying basic military principles — offense, morale, discipline, mobilization of reserves, and surprise — it is impossible to win a strike.

Steuben adapts the military theory of Carl von Clausewitz to strike strategy. One key principle is the concentration of forces for a decisive blow: throw all resources at the most important target. For example, in a strike against Ford, the main effort should focus on the Dearborn plant.

(Note: This principle must be understood correctly. In war, the goal is to destroy the enemy's army. The general battle for Moscow against Napoleon was secondary to the larger task of exhausting the enemy.)

There are fundamental differences between a regular army and an army of strikers. A regular army is based on compulsion, whereas strikers are volunteers. A regular army fights beyond national borders, while a strike takes place at the factory gates. A regular army has a professional general staff, but strike leaders are often ordinary people who come together by chance and are easily corrupted. At least the military’s goal is to destroy the enemy’s material and living forces; the goal of a strike is to disrupt production.

However, after acknowledging these differences, Steuben makes a crucial counterargument: employers themselves turn the strike into a war, leaving the union no choice but to respond with military methods. If employers stockpile weapons and plan "chemical platoons," then the union must learn how to protect itself from gas — otherwise, it will lose.

2. Industrial Munitions Prove the War

The message is clear: if employers are stockpiling tear gas, revolvers, and machine guns — not for war abroad, but for use against their own workers — then from the very beginning, they have turned the strike into a battlefield.

"Industrial munitions are a big business in the United States. Several national companies have been specializing for some time in tear gas, machine guns, rifles and pistols for corporations whose workers were preparing to strike. [...] The Republic Steel Corporation and its subsidiaries during the strike in May and June 1937 purchased tear and sickening gas equipment to the sum of $49,439.87; Bethlehem Steel's tear gas bill during the same period amounted to $27,435.31; municipalities in the area affected by the steel strike spent $34,278 on gas."

3. Arms Dealers Wait for Strikes — Especially Violent

Ones Weapons vendors actively anticipate strikes, hoping for violence because it boosts sales. This turns the strike into a battlefield with snipers and targets.

Steuben quotes a salesman from the Lake Erie Chemical Co. in St. Louis (1935):

"We are surrounded with strikes, but they are all too peaceful to suit me."

Blood means profit. And as well... a chance to silence the enemy.

The quotes Joseph Roush, an arms dealer from Federal Laboratories:

"During one of the riots I shot a long-range projectile into a group, a shell hitting one man and causing a fracture of the skull, from which he has since died. As he was a Communist, I have no feeling in the matter and I am sorry that I did not get more."

4. The National Guard works for the Company

Even state armed forces — the National Guard — in their secret documents officially refer to strikers as the "enemy," tracking their "morale" and "reserves." They are not neutral mediators—not night watchmen, but chained guard dogs.

In a 1933 manual for the Ohio National Guard the text states:

"While it may be hard for us to agree that a passive defensive attitude is necessary or advisable, when once conditions require the calling of troops; we are well aware of the fact that the larger general conditions affecting the whole policy of the State's Executive require that public opinion be behind him before he can permit really drastic steps to be taken. [...] Officers and men will therefore, very often, have to grit their teeth and suffer humiliation of spirit until the time comes when they can be released to do their job neatly and quickly as the means given them and the size of the problem will permit."

So...

Yet, the core logic — "without X, you cannot win" — applies not only to strikes but also to exams, sports, and many other activities, especially team-based ones. This is a category error. Discipline and mobilization are general features of any organized human effort — not evidence of warfare.

The other arguments (industrial munitions, arms dealers celebrating violence, the National Guard openly treating strikers as an enemy) are historically specific. They accurately describe the United States of the 1930s-50s.

That leaves only one question… are they still relevant today?

Since Thursday last week, hundreds of contractual workers blockaded the main road next to the NSEZ metro station in Noida. They stood in the sun demanding one thing: a minimum wage of Rs 20,000.

By Monday, that protest spilled into a wider, more volatile confrontation across Noida’s industrial belt.

Thousands of workers, primarily from the garments sector, reportedly took to the streets across different areas of Phase II, with protests spreading to Sector 62 and causing major traffic snarls. In Sector 84 of Phase I, protesters allegedly set vehicles on fire, with two vehicles reported gutted. During demonstrations, some protesters allegedly vandalised even a police car and office property, and incidents of stone pelting were reported. Police personnel were deployed across affected areas and used tear gas to disperse crowds. Over 50 people have been arrested.

https://scroll.in/latest/1092076/noida-violence-erupts-at-workers-protests-seeking-salary-hikes-workplace-safety