That's very interesting! I had never thought that the state could delegate stuff like minimum wage to unions, but that's actually a pretty decent idea.
Having a strong union means that you can share their resources such as 100% of your wages being paid during a strike; a legal representative being provided for you by the union (for free).
Whenever you want, you can talk to your local union representative to inform you of your rights. And you may even choose, if you want, to have a union representative, i.e. a labor rights expert, present when you negotiate salary or resolve a conflict with your employer.
Everyone acts a lot nicer to each other when the power dynamic is balanced!
Of course, if another industry has better conditions, you can always vote with your feet. Competing for employees benefits the employees, in theory.
This is why I don't understand the "we can't find staff" thing. No, you can't afford staff, there's a difference. Offer me more money and a training program and I'll change my career. It's that simple.
> Of course, if another industry has better conditions, you can always vote with your feet. Competing for employees benefits the employees, in theory.
There's an interesting dynamic there though that you mention that a particular union may affect the employment conditions across a whole industry. So, theoretically an employer in an industry with a bad dominant union might be be hamstrung even if they wish to improve employment conditions but the core issues stem from a bad union (I'll note this question is from the perspective of an American, with limited and generally poor interactions with unions, who wishes things were better here).