Historian Nate Holdren questions the assumptions about why strikes have risen and fallen over the last century.
Nate Holdren uses the historical record to refute the idea that union expansion and wage growth are only possible in times of economic prosperity.
Nate Holdren argues that there is a tension between the urgency of a “hot shop” where workers are frustrated and miserable, and the necessary slow building of organizing.
Nate Holdren argues that “the labor movement has more possible futures than just passing the PRO Act vs the continuation of the present and intolerable business-as-usual.”