13 ms·

> I don't know anyone who is well paid who goes on strike. No, of course not. People usually strike for better pay or conditions. If you're well paid then you

> I don't know anyone who is well paid who goes on strike. No, of course not. People usually strike for better pay or conditions. If you're well paid then you already have better pay, and are probably in demand enough that you will get good conditions or are in a position to negotiate. It doesn't really make sense for e.g. software engineers in the current economy to consider strike action. Workers don't want to strike in general. It's stressful and costly. It's not usually their preferred negotiating strategy; it has to be less worse than the alternative. > great efforts by the strikers will get, at best, a few crumbs It's easy to sneer at "a few crumbs" if you're in a state of privileged wealth. Sometimes small differences in pay can mean going from not being able to pay rent to having some disposable income. And, often, it's not "a few crumbs". > Eg, grouping together and investing in capital What did you have in mind? How does investing in capital help you with not being paid well enough to invest?

roenxi 4y ago
> People usually strike for better pay or conditions. I'm not following. What is your argument for why this is an effective strategy but employees only use it when they feel bad? It is more likely people always use the most effective strategies they have available to them. I want better pay and conditions right now, I don't care how good they are when I'm negotiating. I'm not trying to spare my employers feelings here, I quite like money. If striking works as a bargaining tool, we'd see it working for people who are economically effective too. My peers are more than capable of organising to strike if we thought that might get us an edge. I'm pretty cynical, I could make it happen. > It's easy to sneer at "a few crumbs" if you're in a state of privileged wealth. Sometimes small differences in pay can mean going from not being able to pay rent to having some disposable income. And, often, it's not "a few crumbs". I'm just saying, I'm not avoiding their tactics because I'm snobby. I'm avoiding them because I like money and the strategy may well lock in generational not-having-much-money. The proof is in the pudding for this one, people who plan on striking aren't the people who do well economically. > What did you have in mind? How does investing in capital help you with not being paid well enough to invest? If there are enough people for a strike that doesn't get laughed at, there are enough people to start investing in a better future rather than fighting and getting nowhere. Especially if they put their minds to making the future better rather than how to make life difficult for the employers.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > I'm not following. What is your argument for why this is an effective strategy but employees only use it when they feel bad? Because striking comes with significant downsides. Cost, risk, and stress. It's costly because you lose days of pay. It's risky because there's no guarantee you'll get a good outcome and there are often reprisals from the employer. It's stressful because of the uncertainty, and because most people don't like conflict. Public perception is also important. People who are inconvenienced by a strike are more likely to blame an employer who has not been fair with workers. Well-paid employees would get much less sympathy. > people who plan on striking aren't the people who do well economically You have the causation backwards. People who don't do well economically are the ones for which the idea of striking becomes more attractive (or less unattractive). > there are enough people to start investing in a better future I was asking for specifics. How do they do this? > Especially if they put their minds to making the future better rather than how to make life difficult for the employers. You seem to have an idealist view here that's at odds with your statement of "I'm not trying to spare my employers feelings here" and "I'm pretty cynical".
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > I was asking for specifics. How do they do this? They could form their own company. doing whatever it is they are striking from doing. They have exactly the skills and roughly enough people. If the industry that they're in requires real up-front investment then they could jump industries. Or if that is too hard for them, they could all work the day instead of striking and start pooling their resources looking for some economies of scale, find some excess cash and start investing that. Or they could put their energy into political activism rather than fighting the only person on the planet who is currently willing to give them money.
    - chimprich 4y ago
      > They could form their own company. doing whatever it is they are striking from doing. They have exactly the skills and roughly enough people. If the industry that they're in requires real up-front investment then they could jump industries. I've got a friend who is a railway engineer. His company is slashing their workers' pay and making redundancies that he says will compromise safety. Meanwhile, executive bonuses have increased massively and they have increased dividend payments. What would your suggestion be? Start their own railway company? How much capital would that take? You say "jump industries" but not everyone can jump industries. It's really not that easy. He's highly skilled. If you just "jump industries", how do you avoid starting again as a junior? What if you are providing for a family? > start pooling their resources looking for some economies of scale What are you thinking of? Could you give some examples? I might be interested in investing. I don't know of any investment opportunities that benefit from economies of scale. If there were some, wouldn't they be dominated by the bigger investors already? > find some excess cash and start investing that. You need cash first to invest it. What do you if your company is reducing your pay? > Or they could put their energy into political activism rather than fighting the only person on the planet who is currently willing to give them money. I'm all for political activism. But that's very long term, and doesn't necessarily benefit you directly. If you need to pay your mortgage now and put food on your table and buy Christmas presents it's not a helpful suggestion. Assuming you don't mean union activism, which can be immediately beneficial.

roenxi 4y ago

> People usually strike for better pay or conditions. I'm not following. What is your argument for why this is an effective strategy but employees only use it when they feel bad? It is more likely people always use the most effective strategies they have available to them. I want better pay and conditions right now, I don't care how good they are when I'm negotiating. I'm not trying to spare my employers feelings here, I quite like money. If striking works as a bargaining tool, we'd see it working for people who are economically effective too. My peers are more than capable of organising to strike if we thought that might get us an edge. I'm pretty cynical, I could make it happen. > It's easy to sneer at "a few crumbs" if you're in a state of privileged wealth. Sometimes small differences in pay can mean going from not being able to pay rent to having some disposable income. And, often, it's not "a few crumbs". I'm just saying, I'm not avoiding their tactics because I'm snobby. I'm avoiding them because I like money and the strategy may well lock in generational not-having-much-money. The proof is in the pudding for this one, people who plan on striking aren't the people who do well economically. > What did you have in mind? How does investing in capital help you with not being paid well enough to invest? If there are enough people for a strike that doesn't get laughed at, there are enough people to start investing in a better future rather than fighting and getting nowhere. Especially if they put their minds to making the future better rather than how to make life difficult for the employers.

chimprich 4y ago
> I'm not following. What is your argument for why this is an effective strategy but employees only use it when they feel bad? Because striking comes with significant downsides. Cost, risk, and stress. It's costly because you lose days of pay. It's risky because there's no guarantee you'll get a good outcome and there are often reprisals from the employer. It's stressful because of the uncertainty, and because most people don't like conflict. Public perception is also important. People who are inconvenienced by a strike are more likely to blame an employer who has not been fair with workers. Well-paid employees would get much less sympathy. > people who plan on striking aren't the people who do well economically You have the causation backwards. People who don't do well economically are the ones for which the idea of striking becomes more attractive (or less unattractive). > there are enough people to start investing in a better future I was asking for specifics. How do they do this? > Especially if they put their minds to making the future better rather than how to make life difficult for the employers. You seem to have an idealist view here that's at odds with your statement of "I'm not trying to spare my employers feelings here" and "I'm pretty cynical".
- roenxi 4y ago
  > I was asking for specifics. How do they do this? They could form their own company. doing whatever it is they are striking from doing. They have exactly the skills and roughly enough people. If the industry that they're in requires real up-front investment then they could jump industries. Or if that is too hard for them, they could all work the day instead of striking and start pooling their resources looking for some economies of scale, find some excess cash and start investing that. Or they could put their energy into political activism rather than fighting the only person on the planet who is currently willing to give them money.
  - chimprich 4y ago
    > They could form their own company. doing whatever it is they are striking from doing. They have exactly the skills and roughly enough people. If the industry that they're in requires real up-front investment then they could jump industries. I've got a friend who is a railway engineer. His company is slashing their workers' pay and making redundancies that he says will compromise safety. Meanwhile, executive bonuses have increased massively and they have increased dividend payments. What would your suggestion be? Start their own railway company? How much capital would that take? You say "jump industries" but not everyone can jump industries. It's really not that easy. He's highly skilled. If you just "jump industries", how do you avoid starting again as a junior? What if you are providing for a family? > start pooling their resources looking for some economies of scale What are you thinking of? Could you give some examples? I might be interested in investing. I don't know of any investment opportunities that benefit from economies of scale. If there were some, wouldn't they be dominated by the bigger investors already? > find some excess cash and start investing that. You need cash first to invest it. What do you if your company is reducing your pay? > Or they could put their energy into political activism rather than fighting the only person on the planet who is currently willing to give them money. I'm all for political activism. But that's very long term, and doesn't necessarily benefit you directly. If you need to pay your mortgage now and put food on your table and buy Christmas presents it's not a helpful suggestion. Assuming you don't mean union activism, which can be immediately beneficial.