Every time there's a discussion of unionization on HN, I see a particular strain of comment which seems to argue against an almost Saturday-morning-cartoon version of unions. It's as if every union consists entirely of brutes, and every union meeting has the standing agenda of "Let's ask for big raises, and if the boss says no, we'll go on strike!" What is your experience with unions, which lets you make such wild claims and predictions?

As a card-carrying member of two unions, I can assure you that most of what you've stated here is simply false. Union members are not (IME) "dispassionate" workers with no stake in our work (nor are the scientists I know especially passionate about their publication schedule). Union power in practice does not primarily come from strikes (which are exceedingly rare, and nobody on either side of the negotiating table ever wants to see one). Union work is often time-sensitive (unless you think you can live for long without trash pickup, or nurses, or truck drivers, or electricity, or ...). Most movie stars and pro athletes are a union members, and those positions are just as "individualistic" as scientist.

Union jobsites frequently have "no-strike" clauses, e.g., government construction projects which must continue according to schedule regardless of a general strike. (I've worked through one myself. The union required it.) That's not merely a hypothetical: the linked article specifically notes that the NIH, as a government agency, is not allowed to strike. So I'm not sure why you spend four paragraphs discussing alleged problems with NIH strikes.

Even if it were allowed, in your imaginary scenario, apparently nobody in the union wants to strike, yet somehow the union "decides to strike". How exactly is it you think this would come to happen?