No this is not a good thing. Binding workers right to political views is dangerous and other countries show that unions can work without any party propaganda.

This is so confusing, "workers rights" is political by definition.

Aligning to a party can be argued, I'd say it's best to break things up into policies more than "teams" but still.

Why is it bad for unions to support political parties, but fine for shareholders?

Fighting for "workers rights" is a political position.

Maybe you're making a distinction between party politics (e.g. endorsing specific candidates) and pushing for general policies, but I think it's incoherent to claim that labor unions are apolitical.

The point is that joining a union shouldn't necessitate supporting a certain political party.

It doesn't. You can join a non-affiliated union or even opt-out of political campaigning and contributions.

It's just not all that common.

That's good then.

Not an UK person, but I can't find BALPA in the list of unions here: https://labour.org.uk/people/unions/

BALPA is more comparable to a potential Google union as it's equally representing a tiny group of elite and extremely well compensated individuals. I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.

Unions don't _have_ to affiliate with Labour (or another party) but they often do.

> I don't think that a google employee has much in common with traditional populations of leftist party aligned unions like the factory line worker or coal miner.

Not right now, sure. But the fact that this group felt the need to unionize suggests that something is changing.