Can you explain how it is mandatory for wages to be part of the collective bargaining agreement? It is my understanding that bargaining agreements can have nothing at all to do with compensation and instead on worker treatment or any other issues the workers may prioritize.

"Losing" union dues and receiving legal protection in return that likely won't take anywhere near as long to resolve as that court case did isn't "losing" given we know for a fact that these companies are willing to abuse their position to the point of engaging in illegal activity. We pay the police too, is that really "losing"?

Similarly, "high performers" aren't immune as they are the ones most affected since the various companies are going to try to recruit them from the others the most.

A union that provides legal representation and a standardized process for appealing various issues that are clearly illegal [e.g. The link I posted] before it goes to court is possible without you having to negotiate specific salary tiers and the like.

> How does this address either of my points?

It addresses it as a human being discussing the meaning of the article as opposed to a pedant-bot dicing words to 'win'.

you say don't want to start wider discussion yet you try hard to start one... not really good in communication skills, are you?

I mean, I hate unions with passion, but your post almost makes me like them