That's not always the case though. There's plenty of industries and workplaces the world over that benefit from unions whilst still maintaining the discretion to hire who they will.

I've worked in a company with both union and non union staff and I believe the union benefited all of us without limiting the company in any meaningfully negative way.

Contrast this with shareholders and C level execs who have immense power and often world it to the detremen of the workers.

That same company was literally bought out and our office was shuttered.

Unionising allowed us to collectively bargain for better severance pay and allowed us to prioritize those of us who had additional family/visa considerations.

Interestingly, (nearly) all of the Canadian government public servants are unionized. When you get hired, you can decide whether you wish to join the union or not, but the union will still collectively bargain on your behalf no matter what you choose.

The union is (mostly) in place to work on ensuring benefits such as sick leave, parental leave top-ups, overtime limits, etc. They also are there to ensure that management respects the rules when dealing with the workforce.

Why would anyone join the union then? Save on the dues, and still reap the benefits.

Can't vote on your fate otherwise. It's worth paying the dues :)

Also, in Canada you are forced to pay union dues even if you choose not to join the Union, at least partially.

This is only one side of the coin. Unions can go that way, sure, and it should be avoided through regulation.

Unions are a way of balancing the power equation between companies and workers. Neither side should be in disadvantage.

Why should the buyers of labor be forced to compete amongst each other but not the sellers of labor? In order to truly even the playing field, Facebook, google, apple, and the rest should unionize together to effectively negotiate with labor.

Good question. From my point of view it's because megacorps are already too powerful entities with whom individual workers have little leverage for negotiating or influencing business decisions in favor of improved working environment and socially responsible company conduct.

If FAANGS were to unionize together the field would be even more imbalanced. For instance, Apple already makes US$ 1.9 million per employee [1] which is 19x its average worker salary [2]. Nothing wrong about that, it's a profitable company, but it doesn't strike me as if they're in a unfavorable position.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...

[2] https://www.zippia.com/apple-careers-825/salary/

I think this is something that only happens in the US. I've never heard of a union being a supplier of labor anywhere else.

If a company is forced to use a union to hire workers (cannot hire non-union workers), then the union is the monopoly supplier of labor. It's a matter of perspective, unions certainly don't like to think of themselves that way. In some US states, there are right to work laws which allow for multiple unions or people not affiliated with unions to compete with unions to supply labor to the hiring company.

Nothing says you can't have multiple competing unions.

Given that capital is overwhelmingly concentrated into a few hands, the job "market" is also a monopolization. You can get a different job but the owners are always the same

Why don't unions compete with each other? They should be forcefully broken up by the DOJ if they are not competing with each other, just as Standard Oil and AT&T were.

This is sort of the heart of my complaint, they are allowed to function as monopolies. The AFL-CIO has rules like "no-raiding" for affiliated unions that are anti-competitive in that sense as well.