I believe the assertion was, rather than equal in the sense of interchangable, that it is a counterweight to the inherent asymmetry of a large body (company or

I believe the assertion was, rather than equal in the sense of interchangable, that it is a counterweight to the inherent asymmetry of a large body (company or otherwise) and any individual worker trying to negotiate. In that case, absent other constraints, one party usually has much less reason to accommodate than the other, as not hiring or continuing to employ one worker rarely would deeply impact the company, while the individual is looking at {continuing to commit, committing} a good portion of their available time, along with possibly relocating and however their income is derived, and so has much more to potentially lose by trying to receive even minor concessions. (Footnote: Not all companies necessarily desire their employees be cogs, as some level of {competition,contention} can result in much better outcomes than any of the parties might have achieved on their own, but there is increasingly a sense that some portion of labor will be ever more readily automated with, indeed, fairly literal interchangeable parts, as well as the historical perception you describe, which can yield incredibly toxic cultures that don't care because they can, more or less, train more people whenever someone burns out or leaves because they find something better. )