[jlarocco]

There's another way to look at it, though.

Without unions, employees are disposable. Companies hire them when money is plentiful and throw them away when it's convenient. It clearly benefits the employers and investors to operate that way.

With a union, employees aren't so dispensable, and companies have to take a longer term view when hiring because they can't get rid of employees on a whim. Despite being more stable for everybody, it's extra difficulty for the company and it balances out their power over employees.

[gedaxiang]

> companies have to take a longer term view when hiring because they can't get rid of employees on a whim

that would make it harder to find a new job, right? tradeoffs to consider

[nayuki]

Yup. Hard to fire = hard to hire. Why should an employer take a chance on hiring you, if in case it doesn't work out, they need to spend considerable time and money to fire you?

[f6v]

You don’t need a union. It’s enough to have a long notice period required by law.