It's unfortunate that those who are against unions don't realize that they may, in some cases, be against the current state of a given union, and that they, if they belong to a given union, can change the state of it.

I was once in a union local of several thousand people that was directed by the fewer than 20 who showed up to the meetings. I pushed for a campaign of greater publication of upcoming meetings and in a few short months, the meetings filled a decent portion of a 500-person room. The changes that came about prove that the democracy under which many of these unions operate can lead to changes that cause them to better represent their collective body of workers.

You can change your union, if you want to, and that's a beautiful thing. Your union shouldn't have a predictable political slant (which is what a lot of anti-union normal people dislike). It should represent the collective views of its whole body -- which was the whole point of unions to begin with: to represent its whole body.

Ironically, I don't see any of those takes, but lots of people like yourself immediately running around claiming there are people posting in bad faith about unions.

That’s interesting, I don’t see another instance of “bad faith” on this page. Maybe it’s because I’m on mobile and my browser sucks.

I have seen comments like “Welcome to collective bargaining”, a few (now-downvoted) posts like “They’re no longer Apple employees”, “Unions are good for lazy employees”, and quite a few posters offering their legal perspectives that essentially boil down to “Apple is right to make this choice”. The latter is more mundane than “Unions are bad”, but “Actions against union members are okay” is an opinion, not a neutral statement of fact.

This community is filled with American techbro libertarians, what can you really expect?

It seemed to be decreasing in concentration in the past few years but this thread was rather impressive