Any argument you make will always come back to, "The company will threaten and fire people who don't go along with what they want."
Any argument you make will always come back to, "The company will threaten and fire people who don't go along with what they want."
The whole point of a union is that employees have more power collectively than individually. A company can just tell an individual "no". If all or almost all employees get together and say "the situation is so bad that we're willing to quit (and make a lot of noise and bad PR for you) rather than let this go on", then that's harder to ignore. If the company is willing to fire everyone and deal with the bad PR, and that's cheaper than the union's demands, then the union doesn't actually have the power to effect change even as a collective.
I don't see any reason that either the company or the union should be artificially given more power in that scenario.