What you're describing is extractive. They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term". They are not attempting to balance those constraints. They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support.

It's OK to think that this is a good thing but this is not the same as a collaborative relationship, like you would have with coworkers or another team at a (non-dysfunctional) company.

> They do not factor into their negotiations "is this an ask that is good for the employer in the long-term".

Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them.

> They are attempting to extract as much as the labor market can support.

And what, precisely, do you think companies are doing?

> Of course, it would be preposterous for workers to be elevating the needs of management over their own needs. After all, no one is looking out for them but them.

In Europe it is often the case that companies and unions have a genuinely collaborative relationship where the unions will take the company's needs into consideration, and the company will take the worker's needs into consideration. It doesn't always work out, and each party has their own priorities of course. But it is often not nearly so adversarial as it is in the US. That it is like this is to a large extent a cultural peculiarity of the US rather than an immutable truth.

IF people (incl. those representing companies) were economically rational beings out to maximise their own short-term gain then that would be what would happen. But real people are not, and are often able to see that it creates a poorer, lower-trust society overall if they try to push for their immediate material needs too strongly.

This is of course all backed up by the legal and political systems (which will step in if either side oversteps the mark too far), and a long history in which these norms were established.

I think a lot of it might be the overall weaker EU labor market.

US unions can extract short-term benefits if the workers can hop to a comparable employer easily when the employer collapses. If workers in the EU are bound to an employer for 20 years, you need a long time-view.

You're asserting this, but actual large strikes are quite rare. For instance the recent automakes strike only involved a few hundred actual strikers.

Meanwhile you read about "All transit workers in <EU Country>" going on strike and causing widespread chaos (because no one else can get to work either) every 6 months or so. Usually, but not always, France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Romanian_teachers%27_stri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_German_public_transport_s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_French_pension_reform_unr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_French_labor_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_French_pensi...

I feel like you believe you are arguing with me, when I am simply describing how you think, vs how European unions think.

I was responding to an absurd misunderstanding of labor relations.

Of course if it’s not good for the employers long term to treat their employees fairly, then achieving that would be “extractive”. But if that’s the case, there’s more wrong with the business than just its relationship with its employees.