Well yeah they're presenting an irrational argument to benefit the few.
The only few that should benefit are the owners. If a few workers try to benefit, they're greedy bastards who would be pounded down.
If you're looking at a union there's a specific reason it formed, and probably a specific person in management behind that reason.
> A lose-lose for workers.
There's an ancient saying in labor: "the only thing worse than a union is no union."
Do you have a source for any of this beyond "a corporate spokesmouth said so"?