If you want the wages to be reasonable, then the government should take action to make it so. Not a private organization, by essentially extorting the public.
Protesting is one of the few ways of disagreeing with the actions of the government, i.e. the people WE put in charge.
They’re not overriding the government, because it’s not an issue where the government has any say.
These are the two groups that are directly impacted by decisions related to the wages and benefits. The only way you get closer to the source is by replacing "union" with "employee," but the reasons that unions exist in the first place is because of the sheer power that employers have over individual employees. As it is, the Danish government already granted people to form groups to exercise their collective rights.
"Do what we want or we'll fire you" is acceptable.
"Give us tax breaks or we'll leave you" is acceptable.
But somehow "Value your employees or we won't work with you" is a bad thing.
Why should collective groups have less power than corporations? We have grown accustomed in America to treating corporations as something between groups of people and actual governments.
They aren't. They're groups of people tied together by money and in that respect they're no different than a coalition of workers who have decided that there are requirements to be met in order to do business.
Escalating the negotiation to extortion through back doors, is probably not the optimal way to go.
The idea is, it's not really negotiation when you turn off their water or shut down their loading dock. That has nothing to do with negotiation. That seems very clear, and not hyperbolic at all.
I don't think I've been extreme, but I do know we disagree on what extremes should be 'cricket' and which are over the line. The strong signal I get from this thread is, labor should be allowed any and all tactics because 'labor is good'. That's just not true, fair or rational.
"We have mobs in the US that operate like that."
You wanna bring any more ethnic stereotypes in the conversation, or you good?
As it is, all you've proven in this entire thread is that you're willing to throw around racist innuendo and you have a serious inability to understand basic written English.
This is how I described corporations in this VERY thread, replying to you:
> "They're groups of people tied together by money and in that respect they're no different than a coalition of workers who have decided that there are requirements to be met in order to do business."
Corporations only negotiate with hundreds or thousands of people at a time when they're cutting sweetheart deals with the government or negotiating contracts with unions. They do NOT have that relationship with individual employees. I don't get to bring my entire department into the office with me whenever I'm negotiating a raise with my boss as an at-will employee. At-will employment is funny as hell in its own right, since it perfectly describes the relationships between corporations and non-union employees in the US. We are expected to give our employers at least 2 weeks notice to prepare for our departures, but then turn around and justify their actions for immediately terminating employees for any reason as "protecting the business."
You seem to be very upset that McDonald's couldn't just waltz into a foreign market, ignore the prevailing social contract between employees and employers, and do whatever the hell it wanted and damn their employees. The people in Denmark essentially said "we're not going to allow you to come in and start a race to the bottom. We have social business norms here that you need to respect. You will pay these people what others in this industry are already getting, or we will refuse to service you."
You would know this if you actually read the article instead of wasting your time dreaming up mafia quips.
So what should the speed limit be? I don’t really know but they probably aren’t far off given the way the roads are built, people’s reaction times etc. Plus I know they have some people who have studied unexpected factors (e.g. too many stop signs cause speeding).
Such a system is hardly guaranteed to be “right” but is supposed to be alterable and easier to live with than people whipsawing the decision.
BTW in the case of speed limits: during a burst of sensible lawmaking, California set speed limits but also modulated them with the idea that people are sensible: if the speed limit on a road is set to 25, but the dominant traffic is at 35, the presumption is that the proper limit is actually 35.
As a Californian, this interests me -- can you cite a source for me to follow? I found this page [0] from Caltrans, but it speaks to determining the posted speed limit, not overriding the posted speed limit.
[0] https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/setting-speed-li...
> The most widely accepted method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the “85th percentile speed”, which is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.
Here's a concrete example: Embarcadero road in Palo Alto feeds from highway 101. It has a posted speed limit of 25, and there is a perennial complaint presented to the city council, letters to the editor etc: why won't the police come out and enforce the speed limit? The answer is that to do so they'd have to do a survey and then adjust the limit...up (I think traffic travels about 40-45 MPH on this road). If that is the reasonable and proper rate for that road, to enforce anything lower would be a speed trap. The city keeps the 25 signs up in the hope that they discourage even faster driving.
Likewise when they use radar they not only have to post a sign but do a survey, which has to be updated every few years -- you can't use radar to enforce something unfair. I'm not sure the radar signs on Embarcadero are even current (thus probably not even legal).
BTW as I learned in driving school years ago (got a ticket), apart from "reasonable and proper at all time" you can't go over 55 anywhere unless it's explicitly posted. Actually I got all this initially from driving school, and then when Jim Warren went to the effort of getting the entire CA legal code online in the 90s, I actually read a good chunk of the vehicle code in particular.