This is so false that I have trouble believing you are serious. All pay comes from a fixed source, "income", and the CEO/board is largely who determines how the CEO and workers split up the money.
The UAW situation is different. Unions negotiate contracts that affect all employees. These are set by the ability of the union and management to negotiate, with some pressure from market rates. These are closer to the “stone tablet” idea of yours, but only fixed until the next negotiation.
There is no ‘dividing up the income’ activity, like the other user suggested. Management just focuses on making more revenue than it’s paying for all expenses, and tries to employ as many people as it thinks it needs to acquire that revenue or grow future revenue.
This is a simple explanation that elides a lot of detail, but hopefully helps.
If those are done they are likely ignored or used to figure out how much lower the pay can be. And a strike is a result of that.
The idea that employees cannot profit from a company doing well, not profit from their own labor and simply get a fixed low pay is insulting.
Yes, that is effectively what is happening.
The value is 'divided' between customers, suppliers, employees, executives and investors and it will go to who has the most power.
If the power balance means they can charge higher prices (less surplus to customers), then that money will go to the remaining parties. If suppliers are commodity, then it's a 3 way fight between execs, employees and investors.
If the company sees increasing sales and is flush with cash, the execs and workers will try to negotiate for higher pay.
"Management just focuses on making more revenue than it’s paying for all expenses, and tries to employ as many people as it thinks it needs to acquire that revenue or grow future revenue."
That process boils down to dividing up surpluses.
Whatever the process is, it's walking along a gradient towards finding somewhere close enough to the balance of power.
A “better” CEO would surely minimize labor expenses, by automating, moving to cheaper regions, etc. In most businesses, labor is the largest expenditure.
... and if unchallenged by organized labor
Right now the market has determined that pay is too low to fill job vacancies, but employers are not raising wages, not the market.
The decided upon rate is determined by the outcome of this struggle.
That's how the market rate sausage is made. It's not an impersonal objective arbiter of truth. It's a reflection of relative levels of power and relative levels of desperation.
You know this is true as you are watching a situation where workers will no longer work for $x play out.
The difficulty in keeping one job filled is not dependent on another job. The difficulty in hiring a janitor does not impact the difficulty of hiring a software developer.