[johnnyanmac]

I don't want to be dramatic here so don't read too deeply into the comparison: I'm sure black people weren't willing to go to jail either some 60 years ago. Or worse. Most of the biggest change was achieved with the biggest sacrifice.

If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term. If enough refuse to do it they have to bargain, illegal or not. And it wouldn't take long since it'd imoh be a few days (if that) before the parents join in, with kids either not learning or not going to school over the lack of supervision.

The big issue here is the collective isn't big enough in some areas. Or there's enough supply coming in when the old batch walk out (which is partially why the teachers quitting aren't getting the effect. Teaching is partially a passion job and thst keeps supply high).

[arexxbifs]

> If they throw teachers in jail over not doing their job, the state loses in the long term.

British health workers (nurses, ambulance workers) went on strike during 2022 and 2023. Their union eventually accepted a 5% pay increase - down from their initial 19% demand - which doesn't even begin to cover inflation. Most demands fizzle out into nearly nothing and most unions are by now massive bureaucratic machines, staffed with people more focused on their own interests and careers than on those of their members.

The same pattern can be seen with nurses in Sweden. Salaries aren't high enough, funds aren't allocated, nurses quit their jobs. To find new hires, standards must be lowered.

"The state" no longer cares. That's what decline looks like.

[johnnyanmac]

Yeah, not all unions are created equal. We saw some of thst with the Hollywood strikes last year. That's sadly a part of why some anti-union sentiment spreads organically; if the people who are supposed to be looking out for your interest end up being another corporation to fight, what's the point?

That doesn't mean collective bargaining can't work. Especially for critical jobs like medicine and teaching. But it falls back to the issues of sole people not being at wits end and needing to be at wits end before going nuclear, instead of seeing the long term and being able to withstand short term sacrifice.

[whimsicalism]

> ly; if the people who are supposed to be looking out for your interest end up being another corporation to fight

Except for the super key and critical difference that makes them nothing alike: you can vote on your leadership.

[johnnyanmac]

"vote", sure. Many countries vote for their leaders too. I think small groups like a single company have it worse because at least in some ways a nation wide election will somewhat represent the state of the country. The turnout for a union rep must be awful

Sometimes intentionally. I remember the SAG talks last year "voting" on a compromise and so many people not even realizing there was a meeting.

[BiteCode_dev]

The problem is you have to sacrifice to fight against the move of people that take no risk. It's a very unfair battle.

[johnnyanmac]

Indeed. The house holds most of the cards. But it's not risk-free per se. It's just a prisoners dilemma that hasn't had a chance to shift to the worst case scenario of "literally everyone leaves". Probably still a safe bet, but it's only as safe as the people they are gambling with.

Sad part is that it's bad but not necessarily "life or death" for many teachers as of now. But it may be that way if we keep going.