[gwright]

> Honestly, people just need to organize unions. That's the only effective counter to policy like this.

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. You seem to be suggesting that unions magically understand the best way to organize each and every workplace and that every employer should be required to organize its efforts according to the wisdom of "the union".

How about each company runs its business as it sees fit and each person decides on their own who they want to work for or perhaps just work for themselves? Systems that work thrive, systems that don't work wither away. Build in some social support for people to be able to move to new jobs or create new jobs/companies with as little friction as possible. For example:

ensure that substantial changes to a work arrangement must have a notice/grace period (no unforeseeable changes) * make health insurance independent from your employer * reduce occupational licensing regulations and require states to accept licenses from other states * simplify and streamline the creation and overhead of small/all companies (incorporation, taxes, reporting, etc.) * allow employers and employees/contractors to define the relationship that works for them without the ambiguous and irregularly enforced employee/contractor distinction in the tax code

[QwertyPi]

> You seem to be suggesting that unions magically understand the best way to organize each and every workplace

Yes, it's called "representing the needs of the worker".

> every employer should be required to organize its efforts according to the wisdom of "the union".

No, it's always a fight. The company is perfectly capable of using the piss-poor labor protections in this country to fight back.