this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1716 points (99.4% liked)

Work Reform

11220 readers
1638 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

If the strike or lock-out leads nowhere, and society comes to a halt

Hold up, what if the strike leads nowhere and society doesn't grind to a halt? Because the strike is ineffective, because the union lost most of it's members because of pay incentives to leave the union?

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

because of pay incentives to leave the union

I believe you missed the part about how the employers negotiate. They don't. Their union does. A single employer can pay all the money it wants to its own employees to make them quit the union, but the employer is still bound by the agreement that is made on their behalf by all the other companies in the same employer union. They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors. Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees. It's not uncommon for businesses to pay more or give better terms than the union agreement describes. That is their edge against their competitors. The only businesses interested in "escaping" the minimum pay are the unsuccesful bottom feeders.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

They will never be able to agree to pay off an entire sector to do what you suggest, because these companies are competitors.

That "never" is a pretty big claim. You could just as easily argue that since workers are competing against each other for the same jobs, they would "never" form together into unions, or choose to go on strike in solidarity with others instead of scabbing for an individual pay raise. Class consciousness works both ways, just as workers can benefit more from working together with each other, so too can companies. This is especially true in cases of monopolization (or near-monopolozation), when there are only a handful of companies that would have to coordinate.

Unlike the businesses that are competing in a race to the bottom by lowering wages, the companies that have union agreements are competing in a race to attract the best employees.

Wages are not just determined by the value a worker contributes to the company but also by the power that the company and the workers hold relative to each other. If this were not the case, then there's be no reason to have unions at all.

Even if the most skilled/desired candidates are able to shop around, there will also always be less skilled/desired candidates who don't have the same individual bargaining power.