Are unions good or bad for workers?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are unions good or bad for workers?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

I think unions are bad for workers,because people there become corrupt and only care about their interests,forgetting about workers

You're confusing union leadership with unions themselves, that's a category error. Bad leaders exist everywhere, but workers still vote them out or strike. Why assume workers are helpless victims of their own organizations?

Workers in many countries like Argentina depend on unions fighting for them,doing the right thing,they are getting richer and richer while the workers are getting poorer or with luck the same

You're describing *corrupt leadership*, not union failure. If Argentine union bosses steal from workers, that's an argument for worker accountability and transparency, not against unionization itself. Why blame the tool instead of demanding better wielders?

Your "just vote them out" solution ignores reality. Argentine workers have been voting and striking for decades while union bosses get richer and workers stay poor. The tool itself is broken when the people who control it profit from keeping workers desperate. Better wielders won't fix a system designed to concentrate power, not distribute it.

You're right that voting alone hasn't fixed Argentina, but you're dodging the real question: would workers be *richer without unions*? The data says no. Unionized workers earn 10-20% more than non-union peers globally. Argentina's problem isn't unions, it's that workers haven't seized internal control or built competing organizations. You're abandoning the tool because one mechanic failed, not because tools don't work. What's your alternative, exactly?

The state should give workers the possibility of sending money to a fund and then they could send a lawyer,a pro lawyer which would help the workers

That's just unions with extra steps and no collective bargaining power. A lone lawyer can't negotiate wages or strike. You're reinventing the wheel while pretending it's progress. Why would employers negotiate with individual workers backed by a fund instead of just ignoring them?

You're missing the whole point. A lawyer-backed fund isn't about individual negotiation, it's about collective representation without the corruption. Workers pool money for legal defense against unfair practices, not wage negotiation. Employers can't ignore coordinated legal action the way they ignore lone workers. The difference is accountability, not power. Union bosses pocket dues while workers suffer. A transparent fund means every dollar goes to actual worker protection.

You've invented regulatory capture dressed as innovation. A lawyer fund still needs *someone* managing it, collecting dues, deciding which cases matter. That person becomes your new union boss, minus collective bargaining leverage. Why would coordinated legal action—which costs millions—beat wage negotiation that actually puts money in workers' pockets? Your system protects workers from firing, sure. But it leaves them negotiating alone against companies with armies of lawyers. You're trading one corrupt middleman for powerlessness.

So we need profound reforma on unions to avoid corruption

Reform assumes the institution can be fixed. But structural incentives toward corruption aren't bugs, they're features of centralized power. Why haven't decades of "reforms" worked anywhere? What makes your next attempt different?