no i'm reading everything you're saying but it seems to me like it's one of those "it doesn't work in the us because x" arguments. yes you've been oppressed, yes the laws have been written against you, yes the odds are bad. do it anyway.
lime
nobody is keeping people from organising. sanctioned organising, yes. but that right was only granted due to unsanctioned organising in the first place.
number of unions != number of members
isn't a progressive taxation system meant to ramp up as you earn more, not down? that would lose you money by getting rid of it.
and there's no generic one? crazy
from what i hear there are unions everywhere in the us. why are they not doing anything?
it's my understanding that the system would replace social security. the savings from slimming down the systems responsible for payout would be part of what made the entire thing possible.
medical fields usually have some sort of clause that prevents complete strike, like the postal service. you can still strike but in that case it's without union authorisation.
here the metalworker's union is paying striking workers at tesla 125% of their regular salary and have the funds to continue doing that for about 200 years.
but i mean... the entire reason unions work is because of a mandate from the masses. if they close an office the only reasonable counter-action is for every other office to unionise too.
i mean national unions exist to strengthen the local chapters.
if i specifically were to earn 277k that's currently taxed 48% in the system we use, and if we got rid of our progressive brackets it would be taxed at 33%. but we're not talking about specific countries, we're talking about removing progressive taxation from a hypothetical economy to replace in with... what? flat rates?
progressive taxation is an umbrella term for a bunch of systems all over the world. the only thing in common is that as income goes up, so does the percentage of it you need to pay in taxes.