I guess I’m missing the incentive to constantly not be striking? If the government insures the strikers, what is there to lose? I must be missing something. In other words, there are zero down sides/consequences for the behavior.
Private companies aren’t like governments where they can bullshit on strikers and force them back to work.
If Amazon decides to shut down all its operations in Europe, all workers lose their jobs. If they go constantly on strike as you are hypothesizing, they ALL lose their jobs. That's the incentive to not be on strike so frequently that it's better for owners to shut operation.
The thing stopping workers from constantly striking is the need to ultimately be paid. Think of labor like any economic transaction: supply and demand. When workers notice an imbalance and realize that they’re worth more to their employer than they’re getting paid, why not remind the employer that they’re relying on those workers? If the workers are too greedy or unrealistic, their paychecks simply won’t end up matching their very real economic requirements.
But why not challenge the 40+ hour work week? America could have kept the same levels of post-WW2 productivity with the average person only working a 22-hour workweek. But people didn't have anything to do with spare time in the 1950s so it didn't happen that way.
The protesters are from the GMB Union. Collective bargaining works best when they have leverage of lack of options. They are on strike, literally refusing to work, while at the same time reminding the company of the main alternative. Robots🤖 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cLVCGEmkJs0