[askonomm]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[johngladtj]

On the contrary, it would simply put both companies and workers on the same standard.

If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same.

[turquoisevar]

> 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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same

Yes? Was this disputed?

[tuwtuwtuwtuw]

> If workers want to use their power to pressure companies, so should companies be able to do the same.

Why is that?

[lambda_garden]

This is the part where a basic social safety net comes in.

[lawn]

A social safety net helps you if you lose your job, but it does nothing for you when you're on the job.

In Sweden we have a very good social safety net, but just that isn't enough.

[lambda_garden]

This is why benefits shouldn't be means-tested.

[543354544]

Showing up at work is not mandatory. Only do it if you want.

[sassbadger]

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.

[543354544]

having a family is also optional. Really, don't @ us, we are not to blame for your problems

[Deprecate9151]

Strikes are to thank for that.

[543354544]

I don't know what you actually meant with this nonsense

[soco]

He means that between striking and burning your boss at the stake one should prefer the strikes.

[Deprecate9151]

I encourage you to learn more about the history of labor relations, especially since the 1700s.

[wharvle]

“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.