> That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. I don't share your quibbles, but all right. How about this: A w

> That's a bad analogy. Defendants cannot avoid a hearing. Employees can just get another job. I don't share your quibbles, but all right. How about this: A worker without a union is like going to court without a lawyer. A lot of court cases are optional. You can always just not demand what you're owed or pay whatever your asked. If you lose, just hope the next person you do business with will be more trustworthy. > Starting businesses is hard. It entails a lot of risk. Risk that was never taken by employees. And employees are not bound to the fortunes of the company the way owners are. If the company loses money or goes belly-up, the employees get new jobs. But the owners must simply bear the loss. So what? None of that is a convincing argument that non-business-owners should not benefit form organization. It's not like owners are the only ones taking a risk [1], workers do too. Do you think they somehow fantastically shift into equivalent new jobs whenever their laid off? Workers invest in company-specific knowledge and put down roots near their employer that are harder relocate than capital, for instance. You also oddly fail to differentiate between groups like the struggling small business owner and the private equity firm billionaire who lays off 10,000 workers just because he'd prefer that he and his shareholders be richer. Whatever sympathy the former deserve is not due to the latter. [1] they're the only ones risking capital, not the only ones taking a risk.