Second, employees do not have high mobility. If my daughter wanted to really play off the employers against each other, she would have to be willing to move wherever the jobs were located. How could she do that, however, when she relies so much on her family for childcare and other assistance? That’s setting aside the emotional ties employees have to their homes. Employers have no such restrictions.
Well, there it is and that is all that matters. There is a “cost” to moving, and most of it is non-monetary. Tough stuff kid. Should the employer have to the bear the brunt of the cost of moving because someone decides moving is too non-monetarily costly?
The unionization trope is beating a dead horse. They aren’t coming back. Collective bargaining only works in-so-far that employers don’t have options elsewhere, and lets be honest, the union hay-day was rife with violence against people who didn’t join their union or wanted to break their lines to find work. The suggestion that somehow replacing employer “coercion” with the lead pipes of the Hoffa era is somehow better is absurd.
Romanticizing unionization because a single male could fund a family of four with a woman staying home to tend to the household duties is disingenuous on multiple fronts, not the least being that unionization was buttressed by very real violence. All you “pro-union” types completely ignore the mob like hold union organizations had on not only employers but also the employees, particularly the employees that didn’t want to join their racket.
An employee only has as much leverage as they give themselves.