[ThrustVectoring]

There's a difference between what's best for the group and what's best for individual members of the group. This conflict comes up over and over again, as it arises from straightforward principles from game theory.

If everyone bargains collectively, overall compensation goes up as companies have much worse alternatives to negotiated agreement. However, these companies are generally very willing to bribe people into breaking solidarity, and so it's often personally lucrative to be the scab crossing picket lines.

[oddlyaromatic]

I don't know. Picket lines are a really specific situation. I don't think companies are motivated in normal times to pay more to non-union workers. What exactly would they be paying for? You are right about the general tension between group and individual rewards for choices. It goes beyond unions as you mention. I do think some unions do OK in this regard- actors and musicians are not held back on individual income but still benefit from industry standards negotiated by unions.

[ThrustVectoring]

>It goes beyond unions as you mention.

Yeah, and it gets really interesting when you look at examples from evolutionary biology, too. There's a pretty common population dynamic that goes on between "punish non-cooperation with some version of tit-for-tat" and "always cooperate because others will punish defectors" and "exploit others because there's enough non-cooperators for this to work as a strategy".

In normal times, companies don't pay more to non-union workers - but the company pays the same, and non-union workers get the benefits that union workers fought for, and the non-union folks don't have to pay union dues and the like. There's a very real reason why unions work to make themselves non-optional, and why businesses favor laws that enshrine a right to not pay union dues.