Even if we pretend that was so, at least you have a bunch. A bunch that can argue for decent healthcare, for reasonable family leave and vacation, for any benefit you care to find important. Otherwise you’re just some schmo talking to your direct manager who has been put in that role as a firewall between you and getting a bigger slice of the pie.

Developed countries have reasonable healthcare, parental leave and vacation minimums provided by the magic of a functional government. If your country doesn't maybe focus on fixing that for everyone. Don't need unions for that.

Reasonable healthcare, parental leave and vacation minimums were not acquired in the countries that have them by "the magic of a functional government" but by people organising in big enough groups to matter and bargaining with the government and employers.

~20% of workers in Europe are unionized. ~30% for Canada, ~10% for US. Canada's labour laws are very similar to US, only slightly better. It's not better than or even close to being as good as Europe.

This difference is coming from different culture and priorities. Lack of unions isn't why you don't have universal healthcare in the US and other such things. It's because the country's general culture and ideology works against both unions and social welfare.

You don't need unions to organize and demand things of the government. If people don't want to vote for social policies, unions won't make them want different things.

Virtually every European country has a higher unionization rate than the US, especially in the private sector. (Government employees are a huge portion of US union membership.) Unions provide a political countervailing force against business interests that helps ensure the existence of those reasonable, "magical" government policies. In some countries, unions are even involved in administrating those policies (such as in multi-payer health care systems with union-managed health plans).

Yes they can, it just needs proper process and evidence and not "at will" dismissal.

What about when you have bad apples in the executive team and individual employees can't remove them from the bunch? Isn't it weird and incongruous that shareholders who don't work for the company can collectively vote on and influence the makeup of the company leadership, but employees who work there cannot collectively do that? Is it supposed to be all employees working for the good of the whole, or not?

So how did the bad employees get hired at your workplace and stay there before it unionized? Did the company hire 100% good apples before unionization and then suddenly change its mind and start hiring bad ones? Are you really going to assert that firing people is impossible in a union workplace? We both know that's not true.

You can have an apple that does shitty work and pay them 70% what you pay good apples, and everyone's still reasonably happy.

When I have to pay the 70% apple the same amount as the 100% apples, and can't really fire that apple, that's the not fair to the 100% apples.

Give them bonuses perhaps?

It's damn near impossible, and they can get unfired.

Also I do not work at a unionized employer, my wife does as a nurse at Stanford hospital.

All right John Galt, that's cool.

This happens regardless of unionisation.

See: police unions, teacher unions, etc.