Right, and why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining? Because when individuals rejects the company's offer, the total supply of labor is nearly unchanged. When whole industries reject the companies offer, the supply of labor drops to zero (or to the subset of workers that aren't part of the union). Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met.
Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?
> why is collective bargaining any more useful and individual bargaining
Because collective bargaining means that the party with the largest resources and the power, in this case the company, will have to at least take into account their ability to operate.
> Collective bargaining gives employees leverage over employers by drastically reducing the supply of labor available to the company if their bargains are not met.
Exactly. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that when that power is used appropriately. As evidenced by a very long history that turned out to be an extremely good thing.
Note that such niceties as workplace safety; medical coverage and 5 day workweeks were in large part due to union involvement.
This whole discussion is right along the lines of 'what have the Romans ever done for us' from Monty Python.
The best 'more recent example' that I can think of is that even 50-75 years later there is still a continuous struggle to get basics such as healthcare sorted out in such a way that the outcome of the lottery does not immediately mean bankruptcy for those lower on the totempole. If unions were to be massively disbanded you'd be back to square one in a heartbeat.
It's a bit like marketing: if you stop doing it your marketshare will dwindle, even if you're top dog.
Medical coverage is still very much a concern; Whole Foods just announced they were cutting benefits for part-time workers.
Parental leave, workplace conditions, scheduling are other common things that are still very much up to unions to negotiate for, on behalf of their members.
Saying that unionization is about collective bargaining is a more long-winded way of saying the same thing.
Reply to your comment below, HN is not letting me respond:
So in the end, you don't actually disagree that constricting the supply of labor is the primary purpose of unions. I agree that this discussion has been non-productive, so why did you bother kicking it off by trying to claim that this isn't how unions operate in your first reply?