It allows them some leverage over their constituents. For instance, in Michigan, a big union state, there is no state law mandating lunch or other breaks. That way, unions can say to employees, &quot;Without a union, your employer can deny you a lunch or bathroom break.&quot;<p>From a naive perspective, it has historically been ironically anti-union politicians who have backed worker protections, precisely because it takes ammunition away from unions. Why do you need a union if all the benefits are already written into law? Less union shops mean less union voters.<p>But, to argue for the unions, not only do they negotiate wages, but also benefits. Maybe you aren&#x27;t getting the minimum wage, but you might be getting better health care, a retirement account, overtime, paid vacation, sick time, flex time, etc. Whereas a non-union employer can say &quot;We&#x27;re paying a $15 minimum wage so we can&#x27;t afford health insurance, vacation, etc.&quot; With a minimum wage, all you&#x27;re guaranteed is that wage (other state laws aside).