[catlover76]

I think the notion of "we are all going to quit and/or refuse to work if employer doesn't do (or does do) x" is arguably pretty extortiony. One could also argue it's just makes the market hyper-efficient by signalling the reaction of the supply of labor to a change in the asking price very quickly and directly.

I genuinely don't know why employers do not hire non-union employees in such circumstances; I think most of us assume they "can't", but would like to hear from someone who actually knows.

[JohnFen]

It's no more extortiony than how employers treat their employees.

Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have to even begin to correct the power differential between employer and employee. Ideally, it allows employees and employers to negotiate on more equal terms than is otherwise possible.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Collective bargaining is pretty much the only tool workers have

No, it isn’t. There is the individual threat of quitting. And there are the courts.

[vunderba]

Ridiculously naive take. And both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless.

1. An individual quitting at a company where they are one single cog doesn't impact the company in any measurable way.

2. The court system in the west gives an asymmetric level of power toward the corporation, an individual has neither the time, the money, or the ability to navigate an ongoing protracted lawsuit with a corp that dwarfs them in all three aspects.

[JumpCrisscross]

> both of these on an individual level are so diluted as to basically be meaningless

I've personally used both to extract concessions from employers.

In any case, my general point is that we need more protections in law for workers. Unions are a good way to distract from that.

[JohnFen]

Neither of those are effective for the vast majority of workers.