[visiblink]

You've ignored the fact that unions are limited to organizing one workplace at a time. Companies routinely close unionized locations.

In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand. The power disparity favours the rich. It's crazy that I have to say that.

[ETH_start]

Unions are not limited at all. It's just that they don't get the special privilege of having a multi-work-unit vote recognized as binding on their employer. The government mandates on employers are only imposed as a consequence of single-work-unit votes.

Evaluating union options as only those where they can exercise the power to restrict a company's contract freedom is very misleading.

>>In a contest over the revenues of the enterprise between those who have only their labor to sell and those who have an excess of capital, I know where I stand.

Of course the employer will have more control over the revenues of the enterprise that they own. If it was otherwise it would imply the state transferred ownership of the company's assets to the union.

The disparity is in the ability to freely negotiate and exercise contract liberty. The unions have it, and employers do not.

When a work unit votes to collectively bargain, the company loses a significant amount of contract liberty, and their only option - if they want to completely disassociate from the workers within that work unit - to close that site altogether.