Anyway, the idea is to have a coordinator that work on your benefit. Companies, even the large ones are simply people coordinated by the capital owners.
The not-union is a coordinator for the people who are not the capital owners but those who deal with the capital owners.
The aim is to assist for a fair deal through information, not to extort the capital owners.
> The aim is to assist for a fair deal through information, not to extort the capital owners.
This sounds similar to "the aim is to be good, not bad".
Your assertion does not lie on facts but on your personal moral interpretation and even prejudice against a label.
Unions are organizations whose aim is to represent workers and defend their best interests with the company's representatives.
Sometimes the company's goals are in direct opposition to the workers's best interests. How do you expect the negotiations to go if the company plans to strong-arm and coherce their workers into submissions.
Well, this is not a union therefore doesn't match all the features and objectives. The not-union aims to relieve inherit disadvantages of individuals v.s. corporations while preserving individual freedoms and free market dynamics. Just like companies coming together to fix a price and specs of their products thus leaving consumers with no options, workers coming together to force their own preferences by leaving companies with no options is also unacceptable.
If the unions actually do the things that you describe and people are happy with it, they should opt out for unions.
Sounds like a talent agent. Sectors that utilize talent agents often still have strong collective bargaining agreements and unions in place. Part of the power of a union is the ability to deprive a business or industry of labor. A talent agent alone does not provide such leverage.
