That's true, but unionized spots have such a strong individualistic component to the work. However, in industries such as warehouse workers, the employee ability is a lot more uniform, so I doubt there would be provisions for superstars to negotiate salaries.

It would more likely be something akin to a teacher union, with teaching being in between performance athletes and uniform workers. And even there I don't think individual teachers have much power to negotiate salary, but I could be wrong.

Why do you think the vagueness is in your favor? Especially for a warehouse worker, the job is doing rote tasks forever. Why wouldn’t they be able to project your salary into the future?

I think for a warehouse worker or any other job where people are basically fungible, unionizing is a no-brainer. Individuals have no leverage.

Unionizing can make sense for other types of jobs as well. The person I responded to mentioned their preference for having a direct relationship with an employer. To me, that means other types of places than warehouses because I doubt very much that many warehouse workers have a relationship with anybody above their direct supervisor.

(oops, my comment was directed at the parent of the one I actually commented on)

Surely you're not suggesting that professional atheletes' unions are in any way comparable to a union representing warehouse employees.

I'm suggesting that if you are a valuable enough employee where you have a direct relationship with your employer (as the person I responded to said), you may still benefit from having a union like baseball players or screen writers. The wage table for those professions establishes a floor.

A warehouse employee is not likely to have any kind of relationship with anybody above their supervisor. They can only bargain collectively.