Is that actually the case for the tech unions that actually exist, though? Historically, the people pushing for tech unionization were doing it for ideological reasons, not in response to the relatively recent layoffs, etc. and you can see this in their leadership.

I have a pretty simple litmus test for them: are they opposed to H1B hiring, and would they have defended James Damore when he got ousted from Google for basically being autistic? I think the answer for many of them is a resounding no.

In the case of many teachers, there is no "company". The union fights valiantly against the State, and against the pay structure Voters democratically select for their public servants.

Further, I posit that existence of such Unions serves as an incentive for voters not to simply assign more pay and benefits to such servants directly. Mayors and Governors know that it's always going to be a "Union game" and all they can do is negotiate - even when they're Progressives who actually want to pay teachers well.

It just gets worse when it's Cops instead of State School teachers.

Big assumption about "interests" lead to bad analysis, in my experience.

Of course, and that's why some people are opposed to a union, but then others say you're just falling for propaganda or some such nonsense if you deign to have any, even small, criticism of unions.

> If you have to join a union isn't that essentially a racket?

Yes, this is a big part of my critique.

I'm no lawyer and can't provide a useful explanation of the "why", but literally every educator I know is in the Educator's union. Same with Cops and Nurses. I don't know any airline pilots but I understand it's the same way.

Some jobs it is mandatory to join the union in America anyway