• @Delphia
    link
    English
    621 month ago

    Thats a bit disingenuous. The workers DID have to threaten to strike. This raise didnt just come out of the blue as a benevolent gesture.

    But this is how give and take should work with employers.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      241 month ago

      I hadn’t heard that but with more research, you are correct: they had to threaten a strike. I am disappointed to hear that.

      • @Delphia
        link
        English
        191 month ago

        I’m not that disappointed, its the reality of the system we have. Even senior management have to protect their jobs. They resisted just enough to be able to sell to the shareholders “Did you want a strike? Did you want workers picketing? You want those optics?”

        The system we have sucks, thats undeniable. But this is just the process.

        • @PM_Your_Nudes_Please
          link
          English
          31 month ago

          Yup, exactly. C-level is beholden to shareholders, who would pay minimum wage if given the option. Management held out just long enough for the union to start threatening a strike, when then gave justification for the increase. It’s a big dog and pony show, and every person played their part to keep the shareholders placated.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 month ago

            C-level is beholden to shareholders, who would pay minimum wage if given the option.

            They’d pay less than that. “Minimum wage” means “I’d pay you less, but I can’t because it’s illegal.” Hell, workers had to fight for weekends, they’d happily take that away and put kids back in factories if they could.