Ok, let me explain.
Money is probably the least important thing in a union contract. It’s always about rights.
Unionizing is the only way to escape the prostitution-like relationship of paid work. Accepting to being paid more is just accepting being a more expensive prostitute. “Here’s $100, now you do what the man says… Ok … $200?”
No, it’s never okay. No amount of money can ever make it okay. You should have the rights to choose how and when you do the thing that you’re offering as a paid service. That’s why you need a clear contract that outlines all of your rights.
In this case it’s about termination without cause. As an employee, you’ll want a binding contract, so you can plan ahead. Termination without cause is the employers trick to keep you on a one sided contract in which you’ll have to dance like a bear in a Russian circus, while the employer has no obligation to keep you fed once the show is over.
The reason they strike is that the employer has already abused this power.
The posted article and me.
I’m a union representative and it bothers me that people always jump to the $$$-question. That’s only rarely what strikes are about. Look at the ongoing Tesla strike in Sweden. They were paid over market wages and they still strike, because it’s not about pay.
My own contract doesn’t even mention pay, except that we have the right to annual negotiation. This right has lead to higher wages than any minimum wage agreement will ever do. We’re not here to fight for back pocket scrap metal, we just want a balanced relationship between employees and employers.
This is just difficult to see for anyone who is still working on the employers terms only, or someone who is used to consider jobs “take it or leave it”, instead of taking pride in what they do because they want to do the job.
