Collective bargaining devalues me as an individual contributor. If my pay is fixed to whatever level the union negotiated for me and those with equal seniority, I can’t get past that wage. My upward mobility is traded for a reduction in downward mobility. I would have less incentive to work harder or go the extra mile. I would have the passion and motivation of a clerk at the department of motor vehicles. You can’t fire me unless I do something really bad and I can’t get a raise unless everyone else also gets a raise. I can’t move employers to seek better wages because I’d lose seniority.

Collective bargaining is a life sentence of mediocrity for both a company and individuals. However, for 19th and 20th style assembly line type work where workers are literally interchangeable, then I can understand the appeal of collective bargaining. Some guy turning the same screw all day on an assembly line — there is not much room for “excelling” — you either turn the screw when the next part gets to you, or you don’t. Screw-turning doesn’t really have much opportunity for innovation or extra-mile at the individual level. But for a restaurant worker who might be extra nice to a customer or stay a few minutes late to help make the place extra clean or the kitchen worker who reduces food waste by being more efficient — even those “low” level jobs would be harmed by collective bargaining. Jobs that benefit from collective bargaining are ones with extremely minimal autonomy or require an extremely low skill set: just turn a screw. For jobs that actually require intelligence (emotional or intellectual,) collective bargaining is an insult. Unless of course you are poorly motivated in which case it’s a gift.