My point is that unions should (but don't always) think about long-term business health because if the business loses market share or fails, it's bad for workers. If negotiating power is balanced, this might not matter, but if the union has more power, it can negotiate terms the company can't afford.
My point is business should (but never do) think about their employees as humans and not just numbers on a spreadsheet.
So, rather than try to balance the individual worker against the company with a union on the off-chance the union becomes more "powerful" than the business, you'd keep the business (i.e., billionaires and capital) more powerful than the workers.
You: Unions? bad for workers. No union? also bad for workers. Whelp, can't do anything like other countries have done with stronger labor laws
This comes down to your valuing a "successful" business over humans, where "successful" means American exploitation of profits to owners, whereas some of those profits should go to the workers.
> My point is business should (but never do) think about their employees as humans and not just numbers on a spreadsheet
This has not been my experience. The businesses I've worked at have had great benefits and amenities for their employees. The one time I was laid off, they vested everyone's stock who hasn't yet got their cliff, gave us 3 months worth of pay, and paid for a year of healthcare.
I don't doubt your lived experiences with bad workplaces if that's been the case, but know they are not universal. Especially in fields where demand for employees is high, companies do need to care about their employees if they want to keep them.
I'm glad you had a good company do the right thing on their own. I would like to have those same enforcements universal so everyone can be as lucky as you were. This is what a society does.
