6 ms·
I don't see how that's relevant. Leverage is about what you have the option to do, not what you actually do. You can have the option to strike if you're the uni
by bitshiftfaced 3y ago
I don't see how that's relevant. Leverage is about what you have the option to do, not what you actually do. You can have the option to strike if you're the union or hire scabs if you're the company. Both options help you get better terms. You can negotiate terms without doing either strike or strikebreaking. It happens all the time and in many countries. There was just a massive one threatened with UPS workers, which ended without a strike.
- mcv 3y agoIt's connected. In Netherland, strikes are rare because each side understands the leverage the other side has, but also because they understand they share a common goal: healthy companies. So that's what they focus on.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoNow I'm lost. If you remove the company's option to shut down a division or to hire scabs, then the union side won't "understand the leverage that the other side has." They simply no longer have that leverage. Maybe that would reduce striking, but only because the company is now powerless. But that hardly seems like it's in their "best interest."
- actionfromafar 3y agoYou could just as well say the Union is powerless because they don’t want to force the company in ruin. It’s game theory.
- anon84873628 3y agoYes, but isn't it still considered normal/acceptable/expected for the union to actually strike if needed? Whereas the origin of this thread is people being surprised/confused that the company would actually hire strikebreakers. So the point of confusion is the seeming asymmetry about what is considered socially normal/acceptable/expected.