[cmrdporcupine]

Unionization isn't exclusively about pay. It's about workplace power and voice, the result of which is often higher pay but not exclusively or always. In the recent crisis having a union at Canada's major grocery chains meant they were able to demand a whole series of safety measures and accomodations (plexiglass shields, hazard pay, sick day flexibility etc.) that would have been far more difficult to obtain otherwise.

The origin of the modern union movement (as opposed to old guilds) has a lot to do with the demand for 8 hour days, weekends, and regulation of child labour -- not exclusively issues of renumeration.

Unfortunately part of the post-WWII settlement between labour and capital in the US and Canada had to do with giving up a lot of the shop floor power that unions had won during the 30s, the war, and immediately after it -- in exchange for compensation and job security. The AFL-CIO took a far more moderate political line, and clamped down on socialist and communist agitators within its organization. And when the right wing and austerity forces became more ascendant in the late 70s and into the 80s they were left with no real political tools to fight it with. Unionization, and compensation, declined. And unionization got its reputation as a bureaucratic and often corrupt practice as it failed to do much to help its workers.