All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization.
You might be skeptical of the union side, but the company is doing whatever will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you.
> All your analogy says is there are 2 sides to every fight. in the co-vs-union case, one of those sides is the company’s employees (you). That means the company’s interests are opposite to yours when they fight unionization.
I think that what you say here can be true, but I don't believe it is definitionally true.
I have a vote in the US elections every year. In my entire adult life, I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment of the population whose vote matters more to them. This suggests that having a vote in an organization does not make my interests by definition aligned with that of the governing body that the majority elects.
A union is much the same: it represents the interests of the majority of its members. Most unions will actually fail to represent some portion of their members well, because their obligations are to the majority and few organizations are completely homogeneous.
This may be fine and right, but it also means that I can't just assume that my interests will align with the interests of the majority and therefore of the future union. Sometimes my interests may align better with those of the company, and the rational move for me in the event of unionization is to consider that possibility.
I agree with many of your points but not your parallel, entirely:
> I haven't ever felt like the federal government represents me. Most of the time the US federal government acts against my interests while pursuing the interests of some other segment
Imo, the only thing a rational participant in a democratic system should do is either (a) voting for a candidate that represents all of your make-or-breaks or (b) abstaining. I think if more people abstained (which I feel most people “wish” they could [I quote that because they absolutely could]), we’d see a little more change or diversity in opinion. Yet people feel shoehorned into a side because for the better part of a decade “side = !other side” (in the US, anyway) which perpetuates the notion that you don’t have to offer anything new and hurts the possibility of real change. Let the abstaining groups make their voice heard by the very act of abstaining.
> will let them pay you less and/or exert more undemocratic control over you.
the latter isn't necessarily bad for the worker, e.g. if a tech union tries to force divestment from Israel
if more money for workers is involved, sure, I'm with you. but I kind of doubt it. If the (tech) union spends more effort pushing political things unrelated to money, best of luck to them. for unions outside of tech, this seems like less of an issue
In America, it is illegal for a union to bargain for things like not doing business with Israel. The union can put out statements about how they don't support trade with Israel, etc. and hope that management takes the feelings of its employee union seriously, but how often do you think that happens?
The law prevent businesses from boycotting Israel, they don't say anything about divestment.