First of all, the monarchy always bounces back because Spain is not mature enough to be a Republic. All republicans dream that Spain would be like France and Germany if we get rid of the king. Well, this has zero basis and our left (where republicans are allocated the most) tend to copy the behaviour of socialist Latin American countries rather than Western Europeans. I agree, in short, that, thanks to our monarchy, there won't be a Coup de Etat because the military structure is loyal to him. — javi2541997

It's not maturity. Spaniards that I've met are just as mature as we Finns are. It's more perhaps about poverty, weak institutions, not so great economy, class division, lack of social cohesion and a lot of political polarization. And a violent, difficult history. Also that burden of having been an Empire earlier.

The Nordic monarchies and the UK (after it's Civil War, that is) are good examples how actually modern constitutional monarchies have worked through the problems of industrialization and modernization without violence or revolutions with the monarchy surviving and adapting to a much smaller part. For example Sweden has been run for a very long time by the Social Democrats, and they are all but happy with having a king.

Spain, I think, tells another story. There is just this history of violence and vitriol. Yes, we too had a Civil War (which happened very much because of being part of Imperial Russia and since they had their socialist revolution, I guess we had to have ours too...). Yet even if many were killed in Finland in 1918, there wasn't such cruelty and loathing that you could see in the Spanish Civil War. Also, the Social Democrats, who had started the uprising in 1918, came back into power in Finland in the 1930's having been adapted to multiparty democracy (with the right accepting them). The militant Social Democrats had fled to Soviet Union and formed their Communist Party in Moscow. They were banned until the end of WW2. In Spain the whole totalitarian nature of Franco's dictatorship was there to prevent the socialists from re-emerging.

If during the Civil War Republican fighters posed with dug up skeletons of nuns or thousands of children were taken from "leftist" family to be re-educated until the 1950's, you can say there is deep division and polarization in the country. Without some unifying event, this all will still linger on even if new generations have been born with having no recollection of even Franco's time.

A time that some very old Spaniards still remember:

The Habsburg family represents the Golden era of Spain worldwide. Unification of the country, moors are kicked off from the peninsula, empire, resources from colonies, literature and art flowing around and a big presence in both European and Vatican power relationships. A pure nostalgic would feel nostalgic of this royal family. Since Charles II (the witched) dead without descents, the fall of Spain started on. His successors inherited an empire that remained largely intact, but Philip of Anjou had little sense of Spanish interests and needs. When a conflict came up between the interests of Spain and France, he usually favored France. Ferdinand VII was the worst of them: Spain lost nearly all of its American possessions. Incompetent, despotic, and short-sighted. — javi2541997

Ah! Nostalgia.

Well, the Habsburgs of Central Europe didn't have that kind of a great run in the 20th Century, although it's interesting to speculate if the dual monarchy had survived and would (or could) be a truly multiethnic empire. Let's just remember that the UK has still prevailed in one piece. And, uh, Spain too, even if both countries (UK and Spain) have had their experiences of attempted secessions in the not so distant past.

Yet it's telling that the last Habsburg, the crown prince of the last Austrian Emperor (and Hungarian king) was a staunch activist for European integration and a MEP in the EU. In his funeral, the nostalgia for the dual monarchy in Austria was very evident:

Unlikely you don't think that way, but those that think that changing your job is the cure if your salary / working conditions suck and think it's all about the individual, do usually think so. — ssu

Except I don't think that, either. On the contrary: without union protection, every employer is equally empowered to exploit the workers. Many state governments, and the current supreme court support employers' rights at the expense of workers' rights.

Well, every 9 out of 10 American workers don't belong to a trade union, so I guess you are in the minority.

Well, every 9 out of 10 American workers don't belong to a trade union, so I guess you are in the minority. — ssu

Not really. The minority of rich and their politicians make the laws, make the rules of employments, make the system in which workers have no choice but try to make a living. The same minority also control the broadcast media and convey the information (propaganda) that favours them and turns workers against one another, convinces workers to vote and think against their own interests.

U.S. auto workers launch first simultaneous strike at Detroit Three

The United Auto Workers union launched simultaneous strikes at three factories owned by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis early on Friday, kicking off the most ambitious U.S. industrial labor action in decades.

And some folks said that U.S. was not a good example of syndicalism, hehe.

Not really. The minority of rich and their politicians make the laws, make the rules of employments, make the system in which workers have no choice but try to make a living. — Vera Mont

So trade unions are banned or what? I don't think so.

The same minority also control the broadcast media and convey the information (propaganda) that favours them and turns workers against one another, convinces workers to vote and think against their own interests. — Vera Mont

Well, if you're workers vote and think against their own interests... either they are genuinely idiots or you are just condescending towards your fellow citizens.

So trade unions are banned or what? I don't think so. — ssu

or what. A sneaky piece of legislation in 27 states that does the opposite of what it says.

A right-to-work (RTW) law gives workers the freedom to choose whether or not to join a labor union in the workplace. This law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.

Right-to-work is also known as workplace freedom or workplace choice. While the name of the law implies that it provides freedom to workers, critics argue that it weakens unions and empowers corporations instead.

Well, if you're workers vote and think against their own interests... either they are genuinely idiots or you are just condescending towards your fellow citizens. — ssu

Maybe both and some other stuff as well, like they're brainwashed relentlessly from the cradle onward.
Then factor in the egregious voter suppression and poll manipulation in state elections, and you only ever have a minority - a carefully selected minority - actually represented.

This law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.

Right-to-work is also known as workplace freedom or workplace choice. While the name of the law implies that it provides freedom to workers, critics argue that it weakens unions and empowers corporations instead.

I think this is totally sensible that being a member of trade union is voluntary, the whole idea and participation has to come from the workers themselves, not by some goddam law! Places like China membership might be mandatory, but that makes it far more worse.

What does actually a "unionized workplace" mean? Is it that in the workplace there exists an union?