that is where the power in unionization comes from.
Literally, the entire purpose of unions is to give employees enough economic power to fight greedy CEOs, managers and boards
As it stands now, corporations are entirely too powerful that the only way to actually fight back is to create collective support structures
This is a perfect example of how corporate ownership of the political process has usurped the actual function of government responsible to the poorest people, in favor of taking care of corporate interests
A great example of how oligarchical power is literally built into our legal infrastructure
This is a curious diagnosis of a late 40s law. Consider why average Americans, including those in the lowest rung, vote against pro-union legislation (or don’t turn out for it), as well as the difference between Swedish and American unions.
Outside urban centres and select belts of the country, unions poll poorly. A candidate running on pro-union credentials will perform the same as, or underperform, one who is neutral on the issue. Ignoring the trust deficit American unions have with the public is partly why this situation isn’t changing.
> citizens don't get to vote on individual laws
Most American states have referenda. Even in deep blue states, like New York and California, it’s typically a struggle to get pro-union ballot measures through.
It’s not just some innate thing that Americans don’t like unions.
1947 was one of the first red scares, with for instance then SAG president Ronald Reagan signing explicitly anti-communist statements.
Unions are always assault from capital; they just never really recovered in the US from the red scares.
I would assume that your discontentment is a result of misalignment between what you think is the government's role and what those who make government, think the government's role should be. Which one of you has a more legitimate claim to the truth?
I can see an argument that the Commerce clause grants powers to regulate such claims, but unfortunately federal laws in pursuit of a Constitutional power are still subordinate to Constitutional rights (IMO). It would require a Constitutional amendment to so empower a federal law to override a Constitutional right (again, IMO, as I'm writing to your "legitimacy" question posed to the GP).