undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnthonyMouse2y ago0 comments

> they could hardly work any other way without laws restricting “right to work”

Well sure they could. The workers who agree with the strike go on strike and if that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met.

If it isn't, you've failed to convince your fellow workers that the light is worth the candle and if you don't want to work under the terms that they do, you can go work for someone else.

This is mainly a problem when there is no other someone else to work for, but now you're back to anti-trust rather than labor laws.

0 comments

ffgjgf12y ago

> that's enough of them to put pressure on the employers to meet their demands, their demands get met.

Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers. When you resist the governor will just use that as a justification to send in the national guard to “maintain law and order”. At least that’s how it often worked in the good old days..

> Well sure they could.

In an imaginary world maybe. In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much.

> you can go work for someone else.

Under the same conditions. Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce.

AnthonyMouseOP2y ago

> Or your employers can hire some thugs to disperse you and the other strikers.

Now we're back to "everyone agrees that violence should be illegal."

> In a society with no safety nets and and where any meaningful accumulation of savings is infeasible? Not so much.

But then what difference does it make if you go on strike with 75% of the other workers or 100%? Either way the boss just waits two weeks until you all need to buy food.

Which still assumes that the employer is a monopoly. Otherwise you go on strike by taking some gig work in the meantime, which maybe sucks, maybe even sucks more than your current job, but it lets you make rent for as long as it takes for the employer to feel the need to meet your terms.

> Labor has an inherently weaker bargaining position (due to certain pretty obvious factors) compared to business owners. Unless you have some external regulation or societal pressure and employers are behaving fully rationally (i.e. maximizing profits) that will always be the case for the majority of the workforce.

There is no law requiring employers to pay anyone more than minimum wage and yet >98% of people make more than minimum wage. What explains this other than that employers have to compete with each other for labor?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse