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
Not necessarily because the monopolies themselves are then more prone to disruption.

If Amazon’s the only game in town and Amazon workers go on strike, you have problems that can’t be resolved by competitors rushing in to fill the gaps.

>>claude+Oc
My experience is that the more powerful the employer, the harder it is to organize.

To your direct point, this is why you organize entire industries within a given geography for service work rather than employer by employer. (It's also why there's been a big push over the last year towards sectoral bargaining.)

>>elicas+Zd
Facebook.