If a worker takes $100 in materials and builds a $1000 chair, they created $900 in value. If you pay the worker $20, then the employee was "underpaid" $880. That $880 is what is used to pay the CEO, stock buybacks, dividends, etc.
(I'm not suggesting the employee necessarily deserves all of that $880 of course, but it is the value from which the worker's pay comes from)
If workers are paid according to the value they create, then profits would be $0. (Revenue - COGS - Compensation). So, there wouldn't be money left to pay for dividends or stock buybacks.
Therefore, necessarily, employee compensation must be suppressed to afford stock buybacks and dividends.
My point is that everything comes from the same pot. Stock buybacks and dividends "could" have been employee compensation.
It does require the underlying premise that workers should be paid according to the value they create. I suspect you'll disagree on this, but I hope I've explained enough to share my point of view.
> This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers
Fine.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-unions-are-cruc...
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/labor-unions...
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f46bc621-abb1...
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/are-labor-u...
Please show me some sources that show unions hurt employees.