[idconvict]

> Could you please cite the evidence?

You can google, plenty of sources, but the best evidence is how hard every company fights to prevent companies from forming one. How much has Amazon spent on union busting?

> Unlike the union leader, the CEO isn't working for you, so that private jet isn't coming out of your pocket, unlike the previously mentioned luxury car

We'll probably disagree on this, but all profit comes from the difference between the value created by workers and the portion of that value returned to workers. There is no value without workers.

So, when a company does a $60 billion stock buyback. That $60 billion comes from the amount workers were underpaid relative to the value they created.

[unpopular42]

> how hard every company fights

This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers

> from the amount workers were underpaid

No, workers are paid in full long before buybacks happen. Shareholders are usually paid last.

[idconvict]

You misunderstood what I meant by "underpaid".

If a worker takes $100 in materials and builds a $1000 chair, they created $900 in value. If you pay the worker $20, then the employee was "underpaid" $880. That $880 is what is used to pay the CEO, stock buybacks, dividends, etc.

(I'm not suggesting the employee necessarily deserves all of that $880 of course, but it is the value from which the worker's pay comes from)

If workers are paid according to the value they create, then profits would be $0. (Revenue - COGS - Compensation). So, there wouldn't be money left to pay for dividends or stock buybacks.

Therefore, necessarily, employee compensation must be suppressed to afford stock buybacks and dividends.

My point is that everything comes from the same pot. Stock buybacks and dividends "could" have been employee compensation.

It does require the underlying premise that workers should be paid according to the value they create. I suspect you'll disagree on this, but I hope I've explained enough to share my point of view.

> This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers

Fine.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-unions-are-cruc...

https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions...

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f46bc621-abb1...

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/are-labor-u...

Please show me some sources that show unions hurt employees.

[unpopular42]

> they created $900 in value

No. The company had created this value. If it was just the employee, I invite the employee to try quitting and creating this value without the company. It is bound to fail.

The rest is invalidated by this faulty assumption in the beginning.

> Fine

I can't say I read 100% of this. But it seems to show: - Unions claim to be beneficial. What a surprise - U.S. Democratic party claims unions, who give them a lot of money are beneficial. Another surprise! - Some authors rely on correlation to claim causation. Good luck.

> Please show me some sources that show unions hurt employees.

Have a look at your own links, for instance the last one. Reduced competitiveness of the business is bad for employees. Reduced income inequality is bad for everyone who is willing to work hard. Massive corruption. Waste of money and resources on nonproductive activities. Difficulties firing people who don't perform. Do I need to go on?