He'll identify the key players and throw them a bone and tell the rest to go ahead and quit, maybe even sue them as an example. The whole point of a union is that it can't be defeated by divide-and-conquer: it provides a reasonable counter-balance to the amount of power wielded by the employer. Instead of the threat of a few people quitting, their biggest leverage is "there'll be work stoppage"
Unions can get fired by their employees, in fact it's something that has happened. Their pressure is very direct, they have far more invested in the company working than management more often than not. If a CEO loses their company but has drawn a few mil from it in savings, they have a relatively easier path to rebuilding themselves than employees who have far less wealth.
>To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit.
You've literally just described a union. The reason they're compulsory in union companies is they threaten ruining production if non-union members get used, as a way of giving themselves more bargaining power. The reason you're required to pay dues is the union is required BY LAW to pay for your legal defense and benefits whether you want to be a member or not, so it seems kind of mean to not pay for that.
I don't know enough to speak to the 'being forced to pay dues' point but having as many unions as employees want defeats the purpose of a union. You need everyone to come together as one to have any power. Have multiple unions and the company can play them off against eachother.
>> To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better?
If people that work on the production line doing unskilled tasks got together and complained about safety and refused to work until it was fixed the company could easily fire them and hire another bunch of people tomorrow. If the union comes to the company with the issue on their behalf the company has to listen because the union members will include skilled workers too and they company can't afford to lose them.
Most of the unions I've seen aren't voluntary. When I was in grad school, I was forced to pay dues into the union. I don't like that. I think there should be as many unions as employees like. I don't understand how the union can be understood to be negotiating on my behalf if I can't choose not to have them negotiate on my behalf.
Once the union has negotiated a budget for itself, it has an independent mandatee to sustain itself, which is sort of detached from any selective pressures. If I'm a bad employee, I get fired. If the company is bad, it goes bankrupt. If a union behaves badly, the consequences are indirect. A bad union only gets its comeuppance if the company goes under.
Because the selective pressure on it is indirect, evolution can't happen within regimes, it can only happen when union workers transfer (or don't) organizational knowledge into a new host company. Basically, like a virus. It's just weird to have an entity that doesn't face any consequences.
To the extent that employees have collective bargaining power, they can just use it. Get a group together, write a letter to Elon, and threaten to quit. See what he says. If you have any leverage, you can use it. If you don't have any leverage why would the union fare any better?