[chipotle_coyote]

“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be drastic for a union—or in this case, a union organizing effort—to have lawyers as well.

[tiffanyh]

If you feel like you have lawyer-up just to go to work, that’s probably a signal you shouldn’t be working there.

[roguecoder]

If one party doesn't have a lawyer look over legal contracts they are signing and the other party does, all they are doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage in a business relationship.

I see why that is advantageous for companies that get to employ workers at a disadvantage. I don't understand why it would be good for workers.

[jacobolus]

So in other words companies should pay teams of legal experts to fight against workers’ interests, but if workers want to hire an expert of their own to prevent themselves from being exploited they “shouldn’t be working there”?

[skybrian]

It depends what you mean by "lawyer up." Having a lawyer look at any contracts you sign isn't a bad idea.

(Not that I've done it.)