You cannot actually ratify a union without a majority of workers. Unions are typically democratic organizations. Also folks don't usually like to stick their heads out if there isn't enough of a movement to avoid being fired for organizing.

Another big thing anti-union propaganda pushes is that it's a vocal minority making a lot of noise. Usually it's the opposite.

  Unions are typically democratic organizations

Modern democracy relies on secret ballots.

Unions want "card check" votes that let the leadership see whom they need to intimidate.

I think I misunderstand exactly what a union is, because my understanding of what a union is, doesn't seem to imply being unable to create one without majority support.

Is a union not just a collection of employees who have entered into a contract together which requires that they do certain things as part of collective bargaining actions.

I don't see why that would inherently require a majority of the employees, or even a majority of the employees in a certain occupation.

Is the 50% requirement due to some enshrinement of unions in law?

Minority unions don't have the same legal status in the US. The contract would be unenforceable.

That seems counterintuitive to me. Why does there being other people employed by the same people prevent me and the group I'm in from entering into contract together?

Why are unions treated differently than other contracts?

I'm assuming this is because of some historical accident that came about with a struggle between people who wanted to prevent all such contracts and people who wanted unions to have special privileges over other sorts of contracts?

A majority union isn't a kind of contract. It represents all workers in a bargaining unit, even workers who voted against it. In theory, this simplifies negotiations and helps make sure all workers are fairly represented.

Some union supporters worry that allowing minority unions would weaken established unions. Union opponents have focused on passing "right to work" laws, which require majority unions to represent non-members for free. The status quo probably makes unions stronger in pro-union states and weaker in anti-union states.

Thank you for explaining! Your explanation is quite helpful.

You don’t need to be in the majority to effect change. You just need leverage.

Bernie Sanders used publicity and shame to force Amazon to pay fulfillment center workers a higher minimum wage, and he’s only one person (albeit a person with a platform).

So find the leverage. Everyone has pain points.

And they now apparently are paying the high performing workers less.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/03/despite-minimum-wage-incre...

A move which is more likely retaliatory than it is about Amazon’s profitability and concerns about going under.

Amazon didn’t have to reduce the pay of high performing workers. They chose to. That says more about Amazon than workers attempting to raise their wages.

Exactly. All that is on Amazon, not those fighting for a living wage.

The majority may be waiting for the tipping point.