I think you are forgetting that, at least in principle, the government is just some folks we decide should handle the laws & stuff in the country so that we can go about our lives. Your comment makes it sound like those pesky 'people' shouldn't interfere with the almighty government. OR ELSE!

Protesting is one of the few ways of disagreeing with the actions of the government, i.e. the people WE put in charge.

Why should the danish government involve themselves in the negotiation of wages between a company and its employees?

They’re not overriding the government, because it’s not an issue where the government has any say.

They have tools that neither side have. Like taxation policy. They might get sides to agree to lower wage increases if they promise to lower taxes. Thus increasing the overall competitiveness of nation.

I don't know why but literally every tax reduction proposal is basically, tax the rich less and burn a hole into the budget. Nobody is even thinking about the small guy when it comes to tax policy.

Why is a government more appropriate to handle this sort of situation than the parties directly involved in it?

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.

Its when parties not directly involved are marshalled to coerce a party, that it gets sticky. Those strikes in related industries are simply extortion. We have mobs in the US that operate like that. "Do what we want, or somebody could get hurt"

Yes, and the vast majority of the time, they're called corporations.

"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.

One-on-one seems reasonable, that's negotiating with an employer. But when you bring in 'vinny and his friends' to put pressure on one side, that gets iffy.

Escalating the negotiation to extortion through back doors, is probably not the optimal way to go.

When you stop pretending that employee vs. employer is a one-on-one negotiation, then we can begin having an adult conversation. Until then, I'm going to assume that you're being purposefully obtuse due to the hyperbolic nature of your posts in this thread.

A corporation is run by people. They're 'negotiating' with hundreds or thousands of people. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

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.

'vinny and his friends'

"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.

Joining the union is voluntary. It's simply a way of coordinating action. And strikes are well within the legal rights of workers -- it's the way the system is designed to work, bit a fluke. This article just points out how a system like that may actually be effective.

...when they are allowed to do strikes in other industries, which is the extortion part.

Why are you okay with sectoral bargaining on the employer side but not on the employee side?

Shouldn't a government represent the people? So, why things are ok if done by elected officials, but not by the people themselves?

I am sympathetic to your position but consider a counter theory: not everybody can agree, but perhaps they can agree to have a group of people make a reasonable decision, hopefully after asking for and getting good advice.

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.

> 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.

The links in that page describe the process, including the part you referred to "overriding" the speed limit. I don't think they use that term, but look for what the code calls out for "speed traps".

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.

That seems a bit judgmental of a society that seems a fair bit more orderly than ours. It would probably not work in the US, or the rest of the Anglosphere, but we should not suppose ourselves better or more moral. The purpose of morals is to establish mores for societal function. Theirs works quite well for them.

In Denmark, the government does not decide wages in the private sector. The conflict was between McDonalds, a private business, and the labor unions.

...other than to publish voluntary standards. Which could of course have been statutory standards. Like governments are constituted to do.

The government of Denmark does not publish standards for salaries, if that is what you are suggesting.