> If you believe the employer’s argument that unions aren’t useful and basically just exist to fund their own operations through dues, then it’s analogous to th

> If you believe the employer’s argument that unions aren’t useful and basically just exist to fund their own operations through dues, then it’s analogous to the “light 1% of the wages on fire” scenario. But why would the company care if all the employees decided to light 1% of wages on fire? I'm sure there are a lot of things employees buy that hurt worker productivity (e.g. alcohol, pot in many states), but beyond jobs that require clean urine tests I don't see big companies like Amazon asking public officials to change traffic light timings around liquor stores to make it less convenient for employees to buy their performance-hindering substances [0]. However, I understand that for someone barely scraping by, in a country that basically went to war with unions and labor, a union can be a very hard sell when they aren't ubiquitous like in many European nations. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-warehouse-union-traffic-light-change-bessemer https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287191/amazon-alabama-w...