That's not universally true. Imagine this scenario: If as OP stated employees treat their employer as an adversary, it's a reasonable outcome where adversarial

That's not universally true. Imagine this scenario: If as OP stated employees treat their employer as an adversary, it's a reasonable outcome where adversarial employees demand more than a sustainable company would be willing / able to give. You cannot trust employees to demand a reasonable amount any more than you can trust companies to offer a reasonable amount. Both sides want to maximize their gains. If a collective group of employees have leverage over their employer (through strike threats, mass resignation threats, etc.), it's a perfectly expected outcome for them to squeeze the last ounces of profitability out of a company before it fails, then jump ship to the companies that replace it, especially for non-geographically dependent tech companies. Just as if the company had maximum leverage and no minimum wage / government intervention it would be a perfectly expected outcome for the company to squeeze the the last ounces of concessions out of their employees before replacing them, as we saw throughout most of history. It's nice to think that morals would intervene and both sides would find a healthy, sustainable balance, but that's the ideal outcome, not the realistic one.