I don't employ my waiter. The restaurant employs my waiter.

I would be perfectly fine with a restaurant paying a waiter slightly more in return for happier waiters - especially if it meant that I didn't need to feel that my tips were keeping food on the waiter's table, instead of the restaurant's pay.

But imagine this - suppose a waiter at a restaurant discovered the restaurant was making millions for the owners, while their pay was so low they could barely cover rent and other basics?

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That is exactly the situation many workers in the US and UK are in today.

Essentially there are two kinds of people - those who understand that this is a real problem, and those who don't.

The economy is run by those who don't - and it's much the worse for it.

If you want to limit unionization only to jobs that are "bad" by some metric, fine - but then also limit the size of corporations unless they are struggling. Why should they be free to merge and consolidate and organize, but workers shouldn't?

But that's besides the point - regardless of how high their profits are, they try to increase them further. Unlike labor, they're not asked to justify this by showing that their board members and shareholders live in poverty.