> There's a reason companies like Google suppress initiatives to form unions, and build strong zeitgeists within their employee base that unionization is bad. If unionization is so bad why do companies spend so much money breaking it up?

If something was bad, why would you take the existence of opposition to it as evidence of it being good?

Suppose unionization was bad for both employers and employees. You would certainly expect employers to oppose that. Even if it was totally neutral for employers and bad for employees, they would oppose unionization at their own company because it would make it more difficult for them to attract and retain quality employees.