Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are se

Points 1-2 make sense, although I don't believe (see no reason why, given the rest) unions would "come to the table", other than again when their demands are seen as unreasonable. >I was attempting to provide context to your statement. For the third, I'm not blaming. It's just interesting to me that you would provide proper context (they were trying to exclude other labor) for immigration case; but even though the motivation was the same for the racist case, you didn't say that - I assume it was not because you personally are ok with the anti-immigration case, it's just giving this "context" for racist behavior is really taboo, whereas for anti-immigration it's still ok even if you don't agree with it. As for companies, responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37691256 In reality if they could replace 100% of labor with capital they'd do it. Meanwhile it's actually an interesting paradox... I agree that in narrow circumstances unions achieved/helped achieve worker protections. However, other rules were imposed on corporations without unions, and in different contexts (e.g. environmental, consumer protection, etc.). So I'm not convinced unions were necessary, but suppose they were. Still, if the basic rules are established as laws (and I don't consider extra-legal rules, like suppressing competition for wage, as valid or necessary), a permanent union becomes unnecessary for them and its motivations become as I've described...