Violence is never the answer. Many labor heroes, like Euguene Dubs or Cesar Chavez achieved it without violence. Strikes are an effective way to negotiate. So are worker unions. Violence makes things worse and doesn't prove their point. But I want to know other people's opinions. Is violence ever needed?
Boycotting stuff forces corporations to accommodate for the demands of the boycotters. If all workers cause boycotts en mass, then the corporation has to do what the workers demand or just die away and lose all their money. If it's possible in one case, then it must be possible for any case. Maybe in some cases it is improbable, but that is not related to this poll.
I'll just go and say that I'm from a Third World country, and corruption plays a huge role in our economic crisis (well to be honest it is all there is CORRUPTION). Recently, there was a scam where some $224M was stolen from the state's budget. It took a while before all of the suspects were apprehended (the investigation is still on going though the "mastermind/s" have been the first ones to be apprehended), which proves how slow and sloppy our judiciary is, because none of these would have happened if only Judiciary was given importance. And to think that we pay 30% of the state's budget to the IMF (International Monetary Fund)... /:l
Capitalism is extortion. Those who own the means of production force workers to sell their labor if they want to advance economically, and sometimes if they just want to stay alive. For the workers to not have to sell their labor to their capitalist masters, the capitalists would have to lose their power over the workers. If all the workers in the world were to go on strike now, there would surely be reactionary movements from the capitalists and the governments that support them, because if there were not, the workers would set up a system that would prevent them from being exploited (this is assuming the workers want a system in which there is no exploitation by the owners of the means of production) and all rich business-owners- all business-owners in general, in fact- would lose the ability to exploit workers and thus their business. There is no point in letting yourself receive only part of the product you produce. Capitalism is a system in which you exploit or are exploited. Not everyone can become an exploiter because of their situation and the need for exploited workers to meet demand.
Answering yes or no should be an informed decision. An informed decision in my opinion should be considerate of the economic-political system we're dealing with. It is typical for communist countries to repress protests much more forcefully and effectively by the use of terror when compared to other political models. How can you achieve economic justice in a country like North Korea and not expect a single person to die in trying to do so? History tells us that sadly violence is the only way sometimes to uproot corrupt and totalitarian regimes from the political soil.