Aren't unions democratically organized? If the majority of pilots are junior, as one would expect, I don't see why their interests aren't represented.
If you assume that total pilot pay for the airline is fixed and pay goes linearly with seniority (just to keep it simple and concrete), then increasing the wages of entry-level pilots requires reducing the wages of senior pilots. If you further assume that all pilots are perfectly selfish (that is, they'll never vote themselves a pay cut), then 50% of the votes automatically go to keeping new pilot wages low.
There will also be a contingent of just-below-median pilots who have paid their dues and are looking forward to the fat paycheck that comes with being in the top 50%. Transferring pay from high-seniority to low-seniority hurts the lifetime wages of this group, so they'll vote against it, too.
Thus new pilots are paid a pittance and old pilots are paid handsomely. I'd think this still works even if the pay scale is strangely-shaped.
Their interests are represented. The alternative to a shitty deal compared to the senior pilots is an even worse deal.
A typical scenario is that the company wants to save money, which is achieved via concessions from labor or via layoff if nothing is forthcoming. Usually the senior people bear less pain because the impact of compensation cuts is really debilitating, as it affects long-term pension payouts.
In other cases, they screw new employees. This is common in public sector and other big industrial union shops. The newbs get a 401k, bigger health contributions and the old guard keeps the pension and free healthcare.
But the core point is that the union doesn't merely serve its most senior members; it serves all of them. And if a significant number of the members don't agree with the decisions of the union, they can leave and start their own. I believe that happened a couple of years ago with a rather big union.
It would be like claiming a school teacher would be surprised at having to spend a lot of time with children, or claiming a pilot would be surprised to learn he would be expected to fly an airplane.
What you're really asking is why people outside the organization are completely frozen out because they refuse to participate in the compensation model and should big brother intervene in a conformist manner to make the compensation scheme "more normal" for a self selected group who do not want it.
Its much like "you can't be a MD without working 36 hour shifts" or "you can't be a (real) programmer without working 120 hour weeks in open plan offices" it freezes out a large segment of the population, and that's just kind of how it is. Obviously the vocational skills of doctoring and writing programs have no inherent need of abusive working conditions, but that is the industry standard and those participating like it and there's no shortage of applicants, so...
In practice, no.
I know of no union which have secret ballots. Nearly all use a 'show of hands'.
I don't know which the pilots unions would use.
As for pilots - I specifically said: "I don't know which the pilots unions would use."
I make no allegations about pilots unions, merely comment on the way many unions are run. I have had experience with unions in the past, including being a member.
Before a major vote we'll receive dozens of emails, letters, and newsletters expressing views from both the airline and the union. Most votes are 80/20 and even 90/10 split. Rarely has there been a 51/49 split. I've never seen it since she has joined.
Intimidation could be used to move a vote from 49.9 to 50.1 but like I said, most votes aren't even that close. Based on the material I have I can say employers use intimidation. i.e. vote this way or we'll have to do layoffs.
How much choice did he/she have in joining the union? When you receive the emails and letters before a vote, how many are from union members speaking against the union? If it's always 0, then there is some level of intimidation that your spouse likely hasn't been exposed to because he/she agrees with whatever the union says.
All 3 of the unions my parents were members of always put immense pressure on members that spoke out against the union because they don't want the company to see that there is any kind of uncertainty. Even the legal/job threats when you refuse to pay your dues because you don't want to be a part of their organization is a form of intimidation.
We've never received email or letters from other members. with 10,000 members it would be ridiculous to do so. Like any club members tend to display their dissatisfaction by canceling their membership. Everyone can express their opinions anonymously on the various aviation forums. It's how I learned about the other unions being created because her some weren't satisfied with the current leadership.
I've met her union leaders while walking around the campus and I get the impression it is a thankless job. You're rarely credited with successes and any failure is your fault. As has been said before, you know a good negotiation when no one is satisfied.
The default behavior for any organization is to crush minority opinions. It takes active and continued effort to keep minority voices alive.
(This is also a problem on the shareholder side, of course. I've personally witnessed minority shareholders get completely shafted to benefit the 51%. And to be clear, the existence of the problem on one side does not ameliorate or justify the existence of the problem on the other side.)