> must compensate that worker with two days’ pay

The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications.

> My view is that -- with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad, and worth fighting.

There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that some are dysfunctional, but making a claim like "with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad" needs a lot more evidence. My counter-evidence is simple: historically, there's a direct correlation with the strength of unions and the existence of a strong middle class.

> The reason for this rule is that it forces management to schedule workers more predictably and compensates workers who invest in obtaining broader qualifications.

No, it's just a scam, and anyone should be able to see that. It's like saying I get 2 days pay if I have to write go in addition to typescript. And 3 days pay if I have to write java.

> There are literally thousands of unions just in the US. I agree that some are dysfunctional, but making a claim like "with some exceptions -- unions today are mostly bad" needs a lot more evidence. My counter-evidence is simple: historically, there's a direct correlation with the strength of unions and the existence of a strong middle class.

Unions had a good reason to exist post industrialization when many people worked in factories under terrible conditions. But today, in the West, that's no longer the case. Today, unions are mostly bad.