> Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. And unions have labor lawyers. Wouldn't it help the prosecution to add pos

> Unionization doesn't stop illegal collusion, prosecution stops illegal collusion. And unions have labor lawyers. Wouldn't it help the prosecution to add positions whose job would be to identify such issues, and which have visibility across employers? Today, without a union, how would you as an individual ever know if companies are colluding against you and other workers? What would you do to cause this offense to be prosecuted? > Every single job would get value out of a union if the justification is simply saying ... I agree with this sentence, but I draw from it the opposite conclusion. I think most jobs would get value out of a union. I don't understand your logic here. If something is desirable for everyone, then everyone should do it. We shouldn't assume it's not possible for everyone, and therefore conclude that it must not have been desirable in the first place.