The issue is that being in a "not-union" isn't a protected class, so you could probably get fired for it after your employer sent the "not-Pinkertons" to do some intel.

To prevent this, you'd have to get your "not-Union" to either have huge solidarity, or lobby the government to make that a protected class.

Maybe if you went for the first you could make a song about it, how about "Solidarity not-for-finite-periods-of-time"?

Why would they fire or investigate you? It’s not like you’re organizing strikes or anything like that. You are simply benefiting of the same knowledge that companies have to have a fairer deal.

How are you going to negotiate without striking (or threatening a strike)? Why would the company care that you know you're being underpaid if you're still going to do your job either way?

If you’re underpaid it means you can get a better deal somewhere else.

You’re going to negotiate with the knowledge in par with the company that is interested in having you.

Knowledge is power. - France is bacon.

> If you’re underpaid it means you can get a better deal somewhere else.

Unless companies conspire not to hire you in order to depress wages.

https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/disney-settlement-wage-fix...

Individuals make their ways up and down the stack all the time. This doesn't change the income distribution. [0] Knowledge isn't the only power. Solidarity is also power, and it can change the income distribution. Unfortunately, knowledge of this has been lost.

[0] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Because you leveling the playing field is a net loss for them. Companies like to use their information and coordination advantage, and exploit it to their benefit.

It's why some companies will try to find ways to fire you if you share your salary.

I guess they’re free to try fight it. It doesn’t mean it’s helpless case. Measures and countermeasures, businesses as usual.

Except one party is a billion dollar business, and the other party is a single worker relying on an hourly wage job.

Without the threat of collective action, the idea is toothless.

Thanks to the not-union, the other party is not simply a single worker relying on an hourly wage job. Instead , the worker knows what can reasonably get from the company and if the company wrongs the worker, the not-union has the resources to help thanks to the subscription fees collected from the large number of members(potentially billions just like the companies).

If you're simply going to accept the company's employment offer, why do you need the external organization?

You aren’t simply going to accept any offer, you are going to negotiate a fair one thanks to the intelligence you obtain from not-union.

Without leverage that comes from collective bargaining, how does the intelligence change your negotiating position?

It’s not about extortion, it’s about fair deal. The knowledge is useful as market research, in a similar way knowing rent prices in the neighborhood when renting.

In the current situation, companies have access to this and employees don’t.

Characterizing collective bargaining as extortion is part of the problem.

So it's like a union... but without any democratic control by the members, just a company trying to maximize profit from it's "customers" instead?

What problem with unions are you trying to solve here?

It’s with democratic control and not for profit, unless of course you vote for it to try to maximize profit.

It’s owned by a trust or something similar.