[antisoeu]

Don't you notice that you contradict yourself? You claim they don't decide who gets fired, and in the next paragraph you explain that they will get younger people fired, because they are presumed to have an easier time finding new jobs.

"They" help formulate - I don't think the young people who get fired belong to the "they" very much. Otherwise, again, there would be no need for unions. The young people would just volunteer to quit for the sake of the old people.

[amaccuish]

And yet you've just generalised without looking deeper. "They fire all the young people" is a hot take, until you realise that young people will far more easily find a new job.

[antisoeu]

You inserted the "all", I did not write "they fire all the young people". It's also just an example.

It is also not a given that young people will have it easier to find a new job. Youth unemployment is at staggering heights in many countries.

And by your logic, there still is no incentive for young people to support the unions. They could just give up their jobs voluntarily, if they are so convinced that it is the right thing to do.