A General Strike?
I agree that we should not use the word scab. But that is because few people know what it means; and this sort of language might put some workers off industrial action.
As to the unclarity of the word class; it was always thus since the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century sociologists made this worse by using different definitions of class. The government has had its own Registrar Generals series of 7 classes. For contemporary politics, and organising a strike, little of this matters. What does matter is the law surrounding strikes, which constrains organisers. What also matters is how workers see themselves; as manual workers, office workers, as bankers, as doctors, as unemployed workers, and as full or part time house workers.
For organisers producing some agreement on strikes amongst such a diverse workforce this is well nigh impossible. So, what to do? There needs to be a clear focus on one or a few objectives. Obvious candidates include pensions, job insecurity, and health care. Going beyond this to, say, the young unemployed begins to seem sectional. Finally, unions need much better relations than they have currently with the media.
This is not going to be a national general strike. Not all unions are involved. Not all workers are involved; as less than half of all workers are members of trade unions. However, there may well be people on strike on 30th November who are not in unions; the unemployed, the disabled, etc.. Perhaps this action should be seem as largely about the poor versus the wealthy. As to conflict between private and public sector workers, in both cases there is considerable fear about job insecurity. This should override other real differences in pay etc..
Please see my blog at: