You're right that it's a broad generalization, but I would disagree that a lot of the same rhetoric isn't applied to corporations or governments.

I should have been more specific to say 'unions with bad reputations are often culpable for those stereotypes'

I will be honest I've never seen an across the board "but that's a corporation, we don't want anything to do with that" to corporations the way that's done with unions at least on HN. No one's languishing a "<startup> is a corporation? I don't know, look at nestle and its human rights abuses. I don't think we should support <startup>".

FWIW I don't think unions are a silver bullet. I'm just pointing out that if you look at it from a neutral/uninvested party the bias is weird.

It is probably becausd think companies and especially corporations have proven themselves too effective essentially for that in the pragmatic sense. Regardless of the many objections and insults to them in the generic, and claims made about the utopian alternatives and costs as better corporations and their byproducts are implicitly accepted as the most practical option even by their foes. As a category they are /never/ treated as an underdog in a comparison to any other entity and avoiding involvement in either goods or working for them is essentially treated as a luxury.

Of course the comparison doesn't quite work because unions are not standalone entities - they are linked to government or companies. If they were independent the labor organizations would be guilds.

In the U.S. at least, there are quite a few pockets who think corporate structures are bad in general. I know HN tends to skew towards the entrepreneurial-minded, so it's quite a bit less here.

To be clear, I deliberately use the word "can" in my previous statement i.e., they may abuse their power, but also may not

The bias isn't weird it's the result of propaganda from corporate interests