Of course that is Britain, but in the U.S. I know some younger workers who rejected the unions because, a couple decades back, in order to prevent their companies from closing the unions agreed to lower the union scale for younger workers so long as the companies would lock in wages for their older workers. Young unionized workers in Michigan ended up making less than their counterparts in non-union shops in Southern states with a lower cost of living. So what use is a union for younger workers, who actually have lower wages because the union is protecting their older workers from market forces?
Most of the important stuff that unions fought for a century ago became federal law. Ever since they have more of a burden than a help.
I mostly agree with you, and your description matches my experience with Unions.
However,
I was strongly anti-union until about 8 years ago. I was working as a farm labourer and saw how little protection myself and my co-workers had. When you are nothing more than "two hands" you are easily replaceable.
When you are uneducated, perhaps not very bright, and dirt poor, you do not have a lot of recourse when your employer violates employment laws, you might not even be aware that they have. While I didn't feel the need to form a union, I suddenly understood what the value of them might be.
Most of the important stuff that unions fought for a century ago became federal law. Ever since they have more of a burden than a help.
However,
I was strongly anti-union until about 8 years ago. I was working as a farm labourer and saw how little protection myself and my co-workers had. When you are nothing more than "two hands" you are easily replaceable.
When you are uneducated, perhaps not very bright, and dirt poor, you do not have a lot of recourse when your employer violates employment laws, you might not even be aware that they have. While I didn't feel the need to form a union, I suddenly understood what the value of them might be.