Every work condition you take for grant--8 hour days, weekends, vacations, paid leave, to name a few--is the fruit of the labor movement, labor organization and strikes.
Consider the Homestead strike [1] where companies hired private mercenaries (ie the Pinkertons) to commit violence to break the strike. People died.
Consider US auto makers [2]:
> Tesla workers earn on average about $55 an hour in wages and benefits, compared to $66 to $71 an hour at Detroit’s Big Three, according to CNN research. If the Detroit automakers come to agreement with the UAW, it will widen the gap between those unionized and non-unionized wages.
Unions benefit non-union members too [3]:
> Each 1 percentage point increase in private-sector union membership rates translates to about a 0.3 percent increase in nonunion wages.
The disdain for unions (by Americans in particular) while being completely oblivious to the benefits they enjoy because of unions has to be one of the most successful propaganda wins of the last century. Siding with the world's richest man over your own interests makes absolutely no sense.
I find it funny how in every example I have ever seen of "companies oppressing poor workers on strike" every single time the workers started it by doing illegal and wrong things, and attempting to force the company to give in by force.
Every. Single. Time.
If someone can give me one example where the poor oppressed strikers were 100% in the right and did not actually start with the violence or credible threat of violence before being set upon by the state/company I would really appreciate it, because so far after going through dozens of such events not once have I found one
To my knowledge, healthcare workers at Kaiser Permanente of California haven't burned any buildings down or had a brawl in the middle of the parking lot. The Starbucks workers strike was also non-violent. The most recent Writers guild of America strike didn't seem violent to me, but maybe that's Hollywood. The Oakland teachers union strike also didn't result in bloodshed as far as I know, but also it's Oakland.
Views on collective responsibility for riots have changed a lot. These days, it's only the individual rioters who commit specific crimes that are thought of as bearing responsibility. But before the 1960s or so, a violent crowd was seen as collectively responsible, and it wouldn't have been considered unjustified to treat them accordingly, the way you'd be justified in violent self-defense against an individual rioter today.
I'm not saying they have to be 100% victims, but if you start off by violently assaulting people I'm not going to say that the people stopping you from doing so by force are in the wrong for doing so.
If you want to say a company was evil for sending armed goons to break up a group of armed goons assaulting people or destroying stuff, then you're just plain in the wrong.
Consider the Homestead strike [1] where companies hired private mercenaries (ie the Pinkertons) to commit violence to break the strike. People died.
Consider US auto makers [2]:
> Tesla workers earn on average about $55 an hour in wages and benefits, compared to $66 to $71 an hour at Detroit’s Big Three, according to CNN research. If the Detroit automakers come to agreement with the UAW, it will widen the gap between those unionized and non-unionized wages.
Unions benefit non-union members too [3]:
> Each 1 percentage point increase in private-sector union membership rates translates to about a 0.3 percent increase in nonunion wages.
The disdain for unions (by Americans in particular) while being completely oblivious to the benefits they enjoy because of unions has to be one of the most successful propaganda wins of the last century. Siding with the world's richest man over your own interests makes absolutely no sense.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
[2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/26/tesla-continues-to-be-a...
[3]: https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions...