> Companies are subject to the scrutiny of customers, shareholders, the stock market and a highly competitive job market. This creates a level of democratic accountability that, in my opinion, exceeds even that of Scandinavian countries.

Democratic accountability to the investors and owners of capital, sure, but not to the employees (the subject at hand) or society (what a "Scandinavian country" would be focused on).

If Tesla were a startup with a dozen employees, I'd buy your argument. But Tesla is a manufacturing company that hires people that need to compete for a job to make enough money to feed themselves. None of the people categorizing images do so because they believe in a vision. The power dynamics are entirely different here and the one thing that helps workers achieve a semblance of power is unions. That's the reason unions are protected.

You cannot change the world alone, that’s an infantile Randian fantasy.

You need help from other people to succeed.

You don’t need to be an absolute despot to achieve even the most ambitious goal. Look at NASA and what they manage.

Unions want to change the world. They just want to change it in a way that leaves the Musks of the world with less money. Don't be confused, this isn't about "change the world" vs. stagnation, it's about the spoils.

I don’t see the kind of utopian equilibrium you are describing manifest itself anywhere.

The central question is how do you prevent a race to the bottom? And I just don’t see that manifesting itself if abolish labor rights (which to me seems to be what you are advocating for).

People already don’t have a lot of choice when it comes to their employer. How will you make sure that there are enough jobs for people "want(ing) to go slow"? (Toilet breaks, overtime that is actually paid, parental leave, reasonable limits on work time, ergonomic and safe work places, unlimited and paid sick leave, a reasonable amount of vacation time, i.e. more than a month, etc. This is all standard where I’m from and unions help enforce this.)

What part of moving fast requires treating employees like shit? (Where my definition of treating like shit is not having any of the things listed above in brackets?)

Your tone is respectful but your questions don't really make any sense to me. The company and the government hold unions responsible, they are not all-powerful and often much less powerful than the company. No, it is not justifiable to deprive you of your rights, and fortunately unions can't do that.

With all due respect, I'm at a loss of words, so please excuse the term: You appear to be thoroughly brainwashed. A worker's union protects you, as an employee, from overreaching corporations. It is held accountable by laws. They don't deprive you of your rights, but holds corporations accountable for doing so.

> Is it justifiable to deprive those of us who contribute exceptional value of our right to negotiate?

I can't think of an explanation for this question that isn't grounded in fantasy.

You should look up either Stockholm Syndrome or Battered Wife Syndrome.

Union members hold the union leadership responsible for the actions of the union through elections.

You hold organizations accountable by "voting with your feet". In this case, you find a different employer.

Sure, in battle it's ok to come to a mutual agreement with your foe about how you'll conduct that battle.

That said, "unionizing" is not battle. Nor does the Geneva convention apply to civil wars.

Yes. Luckily, the law prevents overreaching employers from firing employees that insist on their rights. The alternative is a return to 18th century factory conditions, and I'm sure even you don't want that.

A company is never on your side.

What do you make of the history of corporate actions that led to unions in the first place?