Unionization is for losers. If you're not confident in your skills and your value on the market then you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.
> you want to artificially restrict employment options for your potential competitors.
Because wage dispersion and inequality is lower, if you consider your skills and experience extraordinary, you will not be getting pay commensurate with your perceived value to the company at a union shop. That provides a moat of sorts for incumbent workers against "rockstars," "10x," and higher-skilled workers deciding to join the company.
Slichter, S. H., Healy, J. J., and Livernash, E. R. (1960). _The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management_.
Freeman, R. B. (1980) "Unionism and the dispersion of wages," _Industrial and Labor Relations Review_.
Freeman, R. B. (1984), "Longitudinal analyses of the effects of trade unions," _Journal of Labor Economics_
Read about the Great Railroad Strike of 1977.
If your argument is “consider this anecdote”, and you can’t imagine historical analysis of economic questions other than through non-quantitative hand-selected case studies, you’re falling into the same trap.
It would be a mistake to take historical accounts at face value. They are written by humans, not some objective entity.