There is a binary: Pro-union, anti-union. That's it. It's that simple.

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to oppose unions, either ideologically or legally. If a jobsite is trying to organize, employees discussing "individual agency" is fine. But there are only 2 competing ideologies "union" or "no union".

There are plenty of people who would accept the viewpoint that members of the labor unit cannot themselves engage in "union busting" because they aren't part of the management group (there would also be hardliners who feel that all people of all levels of the organization that undermine the union are attempting to union bust, myself among them, but I'm fine pointing out that there is another viewpoint)

That said, any action that an employer takes to prevent unionization, legal or illegal, fun or boring, is engaging in "union busting". They have ways in which they are legally allowed to do this, but any attempt to describe anti-unionizations efforts taken by management as somehow not being "union busting" is disingenuous based on the definition of the term.

One weakness in the discourse is assuming a union will solve all your problems, where as really it will only solve half your problems at work.

> There is a binary: Pro-union, anti-union. That's it. It's that simple.

...and "anti-union" = "union busting"?

hmm. im not a fan of zero sum, "with us or against us" mentality in general, i would guess this could border on coercion, along with hostility towards non union employees (scabs). for example, someone not personally against organizing but who declines union membership is seen as an enemy with this mentality, a gross mischaracterization id say.

I've 'learned' that there are always two kinds of workers; those who agree with the union, and those who've been brainwashed. There is never room for those who simply have another opinion.

You think it's logically impossible for anyone to have a good faith reason not to support unionization?

""Learned""