Yes. There is never a situation in which unionization is “unreasonable”. To say otherwise is to allow businesses to have near unchecked leverage over their workers.
Is it justifiable to deprive those of us who contribute exceptional value of our right to negotiate?
Because they are employees. if enough employees of any organisation stop working, the organisation shuts down.
And whether you like them or not, they provide a feedback loop. Otherwise bad organisations whither away as good workers leave and bad workers stay.
If there are not enough jobs in the area and not enough capital to kickstart businesses, the people in that area are in a situation where something is better than nothing. So a corporation can come in, offer below subsistence wages and the people will feel as if they have no other option. It's not what the labor is technically worth because the value produced by the labor far exceeds the wage given to the laborer.
Individual laborers have no power to fix this. The employer can fire them and exploit the next desperate person. They can even cycle through back to the original person as they get more desperate.
Collectively, the laborers can do something. They can redress the balance between laborer and owner. But only as a collective. The minute the individuals are allowed to operate independently, the old system reasserts itself.
Stop carrying water for people who won't even allow you a drink for your efforts.
In the case of many public unions they are legislatively prevented from striking.
The idea that unions are the ones with significant leverage over their employers in this day and age is baffling. Just look at the railroad workers who got manhandled by a Democratic government!
Practically every comment you've made on this site is a sealioned question.
For those that don't know what it is, here's a primer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I don't really see any good faith questioning in your comment history. At all.
What a union actually is? A competing power structure within a company, and op questions whether such a thing is reasonable in this case. You did not answer but instead tried to try to brainwash op by shaming them into accepting your essentialization of unions as something good in all cases.
Unions in turn fight this by representing a lot of employees, so the employer cannot simply ignore them. The have fought bitterly for humane conditions, a 40 hour work week, and abolished child labor. You might call this overly dramatic, but that's where you get if you let corporations run free (remember those news stories about child labor in Texas lately?).
A "company's mission" doesn't mean shit if it doesn't even treat its employees like human beings. If you want to be a good slave, have it your way - but stop characterising unions as somehow evil.
Union members hold the union leadership responsible for the actions of the union through elections.
I can't think of an explanation for this question that isn't grounded in fantasy.
Unless you're addicted to the bloated tech sector, its not real hard to find a well paying job elsewhere.