I'd leave that for the lawmakers and courts, not an expert. Same goes for the definition of "unions". The point is HR is always acting in the interest of the c

I'd leave that for the lawmakers and courts, not an expert. Same goes for the definition of "unions". The point is HR is always acting in the interest of the company first (if you're surprised, you're probably young and work at a tech megacorp) and if the interests of employees are aligned with these (again, usually the case at tech megacorps), all is fine and dandy. Unions are needed when those interests start to diverge as individual employees have basically zero negotiating power and it's in the interest of the company to exploit that to the maximum legally achievable level - pure game theory. IOW I see the perfect union as an HR-but-for-employees department. Real unions are obviously broken by individuals exploiting unions they're part of.