You’re own words are saying unionizing is to bring in lawyers to be used against your employer.
EDIT: to answer your question below since I can’t reply.
No, it’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers. A company needs to ensure they are staying regulatory compliant, not breaking laws and de-risking company … that’s what the lawyers are doing.
They "de-risk" the company by making sure employees have as little power as possible, as few protections as possible, are as open to exploitation as possible, are paid as little as possible, have as little job mobility as possible, and have as little claim to their independent intellectual property as they can legally enforce.
That's what "derisk" means: it means the company is protected from your interests.
“It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers” is probably the point that was being made. It’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers; it shouldn’t be drastic for a union—or in this case, a union organizing effort—to have lawyers as well.
If one party doesn't have a lawyer look over legal contracts they are signing and the other party does, all they are doing is putting themselves at a disadvantage in a business relationship.
I see why that is advantageous for companies that get to employ workers at a disadvantage. I don't understand why it would be good for workers.
So in other words companies should pay teams of legal experts to fight against workers’ interests, but if workers want to hire an expert of their own to prevent themselves from being exploited they “shouldn’t be working there”?
How is that not drastic?
You’re own words are saying unionizing is to bring in lawyers to be used against your employer.
EDIT: to answer your question below since I can’t reply.
No, it’s not drastic for a company to have lawyers. A company needs to ensure they are staying regulatory compliant, not breaking laws and de-risking company … that’s what the lawyers are doing.