This is a very basic fact of life that everyone should learn in school:
If you are forced to accept the bare minimum that is put on the table, your capacity to say no quickly crashes down, to the point that you may be vulnerable to accept a very unfavorable deal.
A scenario where the vast majority of us might find this reality at some point through our lives is the labor market. Whether you are applying for a job, or requesting a raise or a promotion, you are only going to have leverage to get the company to offer you a better deal if you have better opportunities on the table. In socioeconomic contexts where wages are depressed, this is usually not the case. This means that, for a lot of people, accepting a very bad offer means the difference between living a miserable life with a roof over your head and becoming homeless, so they do virtually have no choice but to accept, which only becomes more apparent if they have family members who depend on them.
It is interesting to note that this may be taught in detail to students of business, economics and law, although it is important information for everyone who participates in the economy: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/tag/batna/
In this context, a labor union that decides to initiate a strike isn't just provoking trouble for the sake of it - it is leveling the playing field by creating a situation where not only the livelihoods of the workers are dependent on the negotiation, but the profits of the company and even its capacity to survive are as well, whereas the latter usually wouldn't be.
Note that this applies to many other aspects of life as well. People often stay in abusive relationships because they do not have the means (or think they do not have the means) to leave them. It is difficult to leave the household you share with an abusive partner if you do not have the economic means to move out, and some people may stay in disfunctional friend groups because they think they aren't capable of making new friends, but need some social contact nonetheless.
Different configurations of society may protect people from these pitfalls or incentivize falling into them. The idea that people should find the means to leave their parents' household as soon as they turn 18 deprives them of an economic mattress that would otherwise allow them to be more aggressive when they negotiate for their salary, or even open up the possibility to dedicate time into trying to create their own business or projects. Different forms of social security, such as unemployment benefits, minimum guaranteed income or basic universal rent make working people far less dependent on the possibility of being laid off, which would motivate them to confront management about negative working conditions.
Its funny, because the nature of educational administration tends to favor people not knowing this. Keeping teachers and parents in check and convinced they don't have any kind of alternative except to eat the next round of budget cuts and belt tightening is their whole reason for existing.
If people started thinking strategically about how to lever better quality education out of the system through negotiation, we'd see more wildcat teacher's strikes and parents that voted out incumbent school board members.
Absolutely. But employers will hate this, as it decreases the leverage they have over their existing and future staff.
And the modern political class is far more aligned with employers than current and future workers, because politicians need the large financial and media networks that investors and owners control.
So you're not going to see any kind of top-down policy change to this effect.
I disagree, actually. There are a few parties in Spain that have been supporting expansion of social security and reinforcements of worker rights during the last few years, and even though they're either the minority part of the government, or are supporting the government from outside, they have made consistent progress. The mass media are indeed almost always pushing these parties and their positions down, but that doesn't mean you should renounce to seek reforms within a liberal democracy - just be aware that it shouldn't be your only field of action, and that building base level organizations are the most important stepping step to ultimately achieve country-wide changes.
I wouldn't call that top-down reform. These parties tend to be regional and they tend to be heavily unionized, paving the way for national reform by realizing the reforms at the company and municipal level long before they're enshrined in law.
In my experience, liberal democracies tend to compromise and sacrifice reforms for electoral expediency. That doesn't mean you never get them, it just means you're always delivering half-measures and incremental changes, even well after the point that full-scale structural reforms are necessary. Spanish Republicans have a long history of demanding more from their government, even at the risk of their own lives.
Absolutely. No argument here. But by the time you've assembled a base of support, the job is functionally done. All you need to do is ratify the changes that your movement already agrees upon.
The mistake is in putting all your faith in some national leader or political club, particularly when that club has heavily vested itself in the current state of affairs. You're not going to convince a bunch of liberal democrats to make meaningful economic reforms when they're heavily invested in the firms that currently exist. You need a more radical party to implement broad and substantive change.
Not all employers. They're in the minority, but there are plenty of employers who are liberal progressives and are happy to see their employees succeed and be happy.