This is extremely ideological to the point of simply being untrue. The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one. Unions are a huge tradeoff and better as a last resort.
I don't see how "you should just hope for an employer who is benevolent in spite of every possible economic incentive otherwise" is less idealogically motivated.
But anyway yes in my case it is idealogical and I won't dispute that at all. Anything that reduces the power of companies or increases the power of works is something I favor regardless of political practicality.
I didn't say anything about managers. My beef is with the power of owners not their deputies. Managers are in some sense workers and are welcome to the fight if they're willing to roll.
"The best outcome is no democracy and a benevolent king that gives you a fair deal so you don't want elections. Democracy has huge tradeoffs and is better only as a last resort."
You're right. It's ideological. And you're on the wrong side of it.
You state it as if it is somehow obvious, but really need to show your work here.
If it is just some reductionist claim about not having a third party consuming resources, that's almost too silly to respond to. But if you also want to forbid employers from hiring lawyers, at least you'd then be consistent.
> The best outcome for everyone is no union and a supportive employer that gives you a fair deal so you don’t want one
This is extreme wishful thinking. The very nature of corporations like Amazon is in conflict with giving workers a "fair deal". Thus, exploitative labor practices exist.
