zlacker

>>onewho+(OP)
This pandemic could possibly be an historical event for labor policy in the U.S. akin to the miner's strikes in the early 1900s. Laying the groundwork for labor protections, unions and the New Deal.

https://www.iup.edu/archives/coal/unions-and-mining/the-coal...

https://iup.edu/archives/coal/unions-and-mining/the-windber-...

>>jdkee+K9
It also could do the opposite, as small businesses get crushed and only larger businesses recover -- creating more income inequality and leading to the most powerful having even more power over our economy. Workers may have less ability to negotiate for raises, thankful just to have any job at all. Unions themselves may see losses as people are laid off and have even fewer resources to put into organizing workers, etc...

Even non-union protections directly by government like sick leave could be harder as businesses lobby that they can't afford to provide it at this time. (In my view, this pandemic shows we can't afford NOT to. But it's a debate to be had.)

I think people have a lot of control over how this goes, I'm not saying it's hopeless. Just saying that I don't think it's a naturally-occurring phenomenon. The Great Recession wasn't great for the labor movement.

>>elicas+8c
That is fundamentally a political issue. Amazon, and Instacart and other direct to consumer business models could easily be nationalized. This event is fundamentally different that the structural issues that undergird the 2008 financial crisis. This is a supply shock followed by a demand shock, not a structural financial shock as we witnessed in 2008. Conflating the two does not do anyone any good.