> "Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream. Agreed, I should have written "harder to replace than hiring and training a replacement". If you need a concrete examp

> "Being irreplaceable" is a pipe dream. Agreed, I should have written "harder to replace than hiring and training a replacement". If you need a concrete example, Linus Torvalds is more difficult to replace for the Linux Foundation, than the anonymous cashier at Burger King. Do you not agree that different people can have different value to a company? > As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years. If you excel, you still have a higher base from which to negotiate from. >No one is muscled into anything. Employers freely choose to enter contracts with unions. The issue is that some employers do not want to make good on the stipulations they agreed to. Collective bargaining is the definition of muscling, as your other alternative is losing your entire workforce, even those happy with their work and pay. Most companies are terrified of becoming unionized because of the new and often unwarranted demands that will be made as a collective, just because of that threat. >As a class, your median wage should be higher given the productivity increases and profits yielded by the industry in the past 30 years. Do you imagine that unions would agree to the reverse? If the total profits have declined for a sector, do you imagine they would agree to a wage deduction? The "collective bargaining" aspect of modern unions is only there as a threat to ever increase benefits to the employees whether they are warranted or not. > Things that are negotiable on a individual level are left up to the employee to suss out of their employer. Bonuses, supplementary pay, extra time off are usually up to you to negotiate. As they should be. You are an individual with an individual value to a company. Your pay and benefits should reflect what you are bringing to the table, not what someone else is bringing to the relationship. Unions are the loss of that autonomy in exchange for seniority, often over ability, no chance of individual excellence within the company, instead, even though the union has raised your floor, they have created a ceiling for you as well, less collaboration, each cog can only do one function after all, holding back your company as a whole if automation or new technology is available that may replace some of the workers, etc. > Items that are negotiable on a class level are left to unions. Base pay for employees, working conditions, employee benefits etc are not individually negotiable. No organization is going to bend over backwards for one employee at the bottom of the totem pole. Base pay and working conditions are law now, and are not going to revert. If they did, I would be for unions, that is what they are good for. > It takes a group of people (the corporation) to provide those basic niceties and it takes a group of people (the union) to advocate and use its weight in negotiation to ensure their members are provided with them. Does it? You can't think of any companies that offer good salary and benefits with no union? None? I am for more legal protection of employees. Class and regional minimum salaries (and wages) for different types of jobs, national health insurance, living wage guarantees and unemployment guarantees, retirement guarantees, etc. Labor unions are not for those types of legislations, as it would completely remove any legitimate role they might have. I am very for the thought of labor unions, but practically, they hold back a business and any skilled or ambitions employees, for the sake of those that might not be as skilled or ambitious or otherwise should be worried about job security.