Strike! (not)

A replacement for the "strike" is needed. It's a crude and destructive tactic, for all sides: workers lose wages, employers lose sales and profits and market share to competitors, customers are inconvenienced, suppliers may go broke, governments lose tax revenues, etc.

The long term harm a strike causes both sides creates anger that gets in the way of negotiating and considering the other side's point of view.

An alternative would be to keep the factories or services rolling - but workers would not be paid, and 100% of income from sales of products and services would go into an escrow account, out of the control of both sides, and neither side could borrow against its value.

It's easily "tweaked" to balance the incentives on both sides and encourage fast resolution. Perhaps after two weeks, all profits must be donated to charity, along with 10% of escrowed wages.

Both sides might be required to put up a "good faith" bond, that they'd sacrifice under certain conditions. The union might lose it's bond if it decided to shift to a real strike, while the company might lose its bond if negotiations go on longer too long.

EITHER side could declare such a "labor negotiation action". If management feels they need to replace workers with robots, or renegotiate benefits, they'd have the same right to declare an action against the union.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Proposed Presidential Vision and Plan for NASA

Could a Minimum Income Cryptocurrency Nuke Bitcoin?

Cellular Mars Bio-bubbles