Once a union is in place, it's hard to remove it, especially if you end up with a lot of union employees that act like the above. It's important for the workforce starting a union to choose, but they surely need to know both the pros and cons, right?

Do we really think not knowing the cons is an issue? Companies can literally force employees to go to anti-union training.

It can be hard to remove but usually not so hard to influence elections if and when the abuses are serious. If the union is protecting some do-nothing guy, you probably won't win an election on that, but effective theft of funds you absolutely would.

Simply existing in a capitalist society is enough to have the cons explained at you.

If not in the almost exclusively investor owned media then in the attendance-mandatory antiunion propaganda meetings you will be forced to attend if managment start to fret.

There's no danger of not hearing the cons.

You’re welcome to your union. Please keep me out of it. Especially in states where union participation is compulsory once formed (e.g. non-right-to-work), I’d leave for a new job before working in a union. Full stop.

Don’t forget to buy your bosses a gift for management appreciation day

You say let's try again, I think before doing that it would be wise to look at why we got rid of them. I'm the UK, I know people who are doctors and teachers, they all have stories of how their unions are hurting the public.

The thing with teachers unions and doctors unions you have to remember is that they represent the interests of the teachers or the doctors. They don't represent the interests of pupils, patients, or the public. In fact they have to work directly against those groups for the interests of their members.

Sometimes, but not necessarily always. I'm in UCU, the UK academics' union. We're quite often on the same side as the students, and not on the same side as the government. We get substantial support from students' unions on the basis that 'your working conditions are our learning conditions'. Casualisation, for example, is seen as substantially damaging good quality teaching for pretty small financial gains - but teaching is not in practice seen as a major priority by government or senior university managers.

We don't represent the public. Whether we're working on behalf of the public depends on whether you think the government's position represents 'the public', and which part of the public you're most interested in. (The interests of childless taxpayers who don't believe in the importance of university education are not well represented by lecturers and their unions, surprisingly enough...)

I think what I'm saying is that some of the conflicts between unions and management are zero-sum, but others are not. And while public sector unions can narrowly represent a producer interest, that certainly isn't true of all situations.

>it would be wise to look at why we got rid of them. I'm the UK

It would be wise to question why the military was brought in to get rid of them - both in the UK or the US.

Not saying I disagree with the idea of "trying unions again" but by your own admission, isn't 'telling anecdotes about "that one lazy guy who got paid for doing nothing"' something that you call tired?

What's to say that founders, managers and execs bleeding people dry isn't also something equally "tired" given that in today's labor market, any such leadership will bleed out talent that will vote with their feet for greener pastures?

As a sibling comment said, unions have their pros and cons.

For most people in lower wage jobs, the ability to switch job and vote with their feet is a lot more complicated than it is for tech workers. The balance of power is firmly on the employer side, yes even today with labor shortages. I'm sure you read about those amazon workers being blown up by tornados being denied the ability to go home. "They could have switched jobs!" shouldn't be the default answer.

So yes, pros and cons with unions, but let's not forget where the balance of power is right now.