Ok then I don't understand. You brought up revenue comparisons as an argument against unionization, presumably because a company making less revenue per employee is somehow bad for employees. I claimed that revenue per employee is largely unrelated to compensation or benefits and we should really be talking about those things. Now you seem to agree that profit per employee doesn't affect wages but instead only benefits the corporation, which is able to start new projects.
The point is that you were saying you’re not getting a share of the profits, my point is that the profits are being shared in the form of additional employees.
If profits increased and employees stayed the same then you’d have a point.
