Why must your compensation be based on relative pay to the most highly paid in your company rather than what you are worth to the company and what the market fo

Why must your compensation be based on relative pay to the most highly paid in your company rather than what you are worth to the company and what the market for your labor will pay? The only rationale I see is jealousy which doesn't seem very noble or sustainable. Assume worker A gets paid $100k and his CEO gets paid 10x that. Worker B also gets 100k but her CEO gets paid 2x that. How is it fair to increase worker A's comp more than worker B based on that fact alone which worker A has no control over. Alternatively, lowering the CEO's comp only makes sense if it will lead to better returns for the company but if it results iin the good CEO leaving and a lower quality CEO replacement, the company may well perform poorly and than everyone suffers. I would say that jealousy is not a good basis for economic policy. A Company in the tech field needs flexibility to grow and shrink its labor force quickly to adapt as technologies come and go. Labor unions hamper growth which otherwise would benefits everyoe and siphon off money to unproductive and divisive union bureaucracies. particularly in the tech field where worker mobility is high I see little reason for unions.