Yes, you make some interesting points. I suspect that you and I have a number of differing opinions, but I understand where you’re coming from.
I think that one of our differences in opinion is that you believe that employees don’t have much to risk because employers can’t cut more staff without causing more harm than good. (My apologies if I’m not representing you accurately. I’m not trying to distort your point of view). However, I think that if an employer can’t afford to raise the pay of their staff, the employer will either have to shut down the business, hire cheaper staff (perhaps by relocating) or reduce employees. The easiest option is to reduce staff.
The government appears to believe that either employers are simply holding out on paying their employees enough. That is, new regulations companies will find money somewhere to give their employees more. I think this is not a valid assumption. It failed with Obamacare and I think it will fail here. The economy is not good and many businesses are struggling. If the money isn’t there, then imposing regulations which increase costs won’t create money. Instead, companies will have to either shut down or relocate.
You make a good point about unions gaining numbers if employees feel under enough pressure to organize. However, the unions aren’t going to make the money appear either. Employees can strike as much as they’d like, but if the company can’t afford to pay their workers more money, the company will simply go out of business because of the lost production.