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?
