We should use this term more often against the corporations exploiting the workers.
I am somewhat ambivalent towards unions - they can sometimes be a blessing or a curse to the workers. It really needs some regulation to ensure they serve the workers rather than serving the ones willing to play union politics.
But I am not at all ambivalent on corporations. Their only mandate is profit, and they will exploit (i.e.: leech from) workers as much as they can. It's their mandate, the very thing they exist to do.
What I mean is that having a runway where your union members can do literally nothing for 500 years and continue to get paid would suggest there is a monumental amount of cash sitting in a bank. I agree that unions need a rainy day fund, but this seems egregious. If they had said 10 or 20 years, that would make more sense to me.
It's likely that not every union member is striking, it is probably a sectoral union, e.g. the Swedish Dockworkers Union. There is still a lot of other dock-work to do besides unload Teslas, one would assume. So the union has 500 years of funds but that's for some small fraction of the workers.
Of course they don't. The profits would be directed to those that own it.
I've worked for companies whose CEO had wealth that was way higher than 500x my yearly salary.
And even still, that was a misinterpretation on your part. It is a partial strike, only against Tesla. The dockworkers are still servicing other companies.
We should use this term more often against the corporations exploiting the workers.
I am somewhat ambivalent towards unions - they can sometimes be a blessing or a curse to the workers. It really needs some regulation to ensure they serve the workers rather than serving the ones willing to play union politics.
But I am not at all ambivalent on corporations. Their only mandate is profit, and they will exploit (i.e.: leech from) workers as much as they can. It's their mandate, the very thing they exist to do.