3 ms·

Now 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 sid

Now 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Yes, 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.