Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.
So, rather than try to balance the individual worker against the company with a union on the off-chance the union becomes more "powerful" than the business, you'd keep the business (i.e., billionaires and capital) more powerful than the workers.
You: Unions? bad for workers. No union? also bad for workers. Whelp, can't do anything like other countries have done with stronger labor laws
This comes down to your valuing a "successful" business over humans, where "successful" means American exploitation of profits to owners, whereas some of those profits should go to the workers.
This has not been my experience. The businesses I've worked at have had great benefits and amenities for their employees. The one time I was laid off, they vested everyone's stock who hasn't yet got their cliff, gave us 3 months worth of pay, and paid for a year of healthcare.
I don't doubt your lived experiences with bad workplaces if that's been the case, but know they are not universal. Especially in fields where demand for employees is high, companies do need to care about their employees if they want to keep them.
Nonsense. Maybe once a business reaches a certain level of power that becomes true, but as a small business owner, the individual workers who work for me have way more power than I do.
> Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.
A worker union is just a collective of workers who have agreed to associate. It would be unusual for workers to look out for anything other than themselves (humans are selfish), but theoretically nothing says they can't cater to the business instead. It depends on what they want.