That's a bad comparison because the power dynamics are wildly different.
To quote another commenter:
> Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations.
To quote another commenter:
> Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations.
People seem to forget labour rights have been won by blood, not some benevolence of companies in a capitalistic society.
I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them.
If we don’t want the government interjecting itself into “contracts” then let’s have that. Courts and cops should not be enforcing contracts. People should not be going to prison for breaking contracts.
It’s unfair to have it both ways. The government is currently protecting employers against employees - and not really the other way around.
So maybe let’s balance government influence in contracts?
It’s perfectly fine for the government to force a company to keep a store open because they unionized. In the grand scheme of things these companies still have a huge advantage.
Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999564
>I think the problem here is that property owners both want government protection but they specifically hate it when it doesn’t help them.
I'm not sure why property owners are being singled out here when the statement is applicable to basically everyone. Who doesn't love free government services but hate taxes?