The journalist was saying that in the 30s, bc the ppl unionizing were in factories where the business’s biggest costs were in the parts of manufacture, not the cost of labor, the bosses were like, ok, we can spend a little more on this and allow them to unionize.
Vs today, in our more service-based economy, where labor costs are a much bigger proportion of the business expenses, companies have a higher interest in busting unions – they have more to lose.
Then the journalist left it there, on like a “they have an uphill battle to fight.” Which is so true… But I was annoyed that they didn’t elaborate on how that shows JUST HOW MUCH POWER service workers have!!!! Like the ability to withhold labor in a strike can have that much more on an impact. But of course they didn’t take a radical perspective because it’s the NYT after all.
Just wondering if anyone else noticed this this week.