Doing so would prevent people from striking against unfair conditions, because they would lose the ability to feed themselves, and so would rather suffer bad working conditions. If you care at all about human beings, you should not be able to fire people simply because they voice their concerns about unfair working conditions, etc.
> so would rather suffer bad working conditions. If you care at all about human beings
Or social stability. We came to a consensus on striking workers because before that it was violent. Reprisal against those speaking a common view on despised conditions is how you make martyrs.
> On the contrary, it would simply put both companies and workers on the same standard.
If by “same standard” you mean equal footing, then I don’t see how you’d square that circle.
By definition an employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical, so is landlord-tenant, corporations-consumer, doctor-patient, teacher-student, etc.
In all those relationships one has more leverage than the other.
Which is why, in most developed nations, there are guardrails in an effort to equalize that relationship.
Wait, is that an offer to pay for mine and my families' housing and basic needs? Please let us know, cause most people would absolutely stop working their miserable jobs if they were provided for.
“Free” workers under capitalism used to often not be free to leave the job. As in they’d be locked in, or some big dudes would encourage them to stay, or they’d be in some remote area and paid largely in scrip, and practically unable to quit, or a despotic local “big man” major employer would ensure they’d have to leave town if they upset him, which could include things like “wasn’t back in the bunk house before curfew”. The labor movement is largely the reason capitalists don’t/can’t still do those things.
Striking workers aren’t paid in the first place. Allowing collective bargainers to be fired creates an unbalanced system where employers always have more leverage than workers.
Think about it this way: how do I fire the corporations that I’m forced to patronize? Can you survive modern life without buying a single product from Unilever/Nestle/P&G/J&J? How do you make a video call to your family without Google/Apple/Microsoft/Meta being involved? How do I make a phone call without AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile? Can I buy a microwave that isn’t manufactured by Midea, LG, Panasonic, or Samsung? What about an LCD/OLED panel that isn’t made by LG or Samsung? How do I fly anywhere without Boeing or Airbus? How do I buy a phone/computer without patronizing Foxconn, Qualcomm, TSMC, or Samsung?
Corporations get a captive audience of consumers but they’re allowed to fire people for negotiating the terms of their employment? That doesn’t seem balanced to me.
> Striking workers aren’t paid in the first place.
Mostly correct. But unions save the union dues and pay it back to striking workers as compensation for the lost income from work.
For example union members at Tesla get 100% wage compensated:
> Members at Tesla receive conflict compensation from day one when the conflict breaks out. The compensation is 100 percent of the income you would have received if you had worked. This also applies for you who apply for membership during the conflict and the compensation is paid from day one of your membership.
Thanks to good planning by the union, the workers are being compensated - but the point remains that the striking workers aren't costing the employer any money, which was one commenter's claim for why it's unfair to Tesla.
Lol, nordic states do have one of the highest living standards in the world and are ranking among the top on all important parameters and they do have this union system in place for some decades already, but sure, some strikes will ruin EVERYTHING... I wonder do ppl really believe in such silly things?
