I was being cheeky earlier, I apologize.

I'm in favor of a socialist economy (workplace democracy), so I don't really believe in unions in the long run. However, in a capitalist society, I do see them as pretty much the only vehicle which the workers can collectively bargain against the collective of bosses, owners, and stakeholders.

Capitalist societies that allow for unions explicitly demonstrate the conflict of interests between capital (the bosses, owners, and stakeholders) and the workers. Capital's main and only interest is profit. Capital, as a rather amorphous idea, has no morals and will seek profit at whatever cost to the environment, their consumers, and their workers. If capital can get away with fucking someone over without anyone knowing about it or being able to do anything about it to get an extra buck, it will.

On the other hand, workers have a few main intrests: safe working conditions, wages that provide a meaningful existence free of struggle, the ability to afford (or have provided by the workplace) healthcare, dental, vision and other basic necessities such as childcare, tutoring, etc., and technology that makes work easier/ less strenuous.

Because workers and capital have different intrests, every negotiation will be one in which each tries to maximize their own interests. When a single employee attempts to enter into a negotiation with capital there is a massive power imbalance; while the employee is merely a single person, capital is represented by every single member of the heiarchy as well as every single person who has invested their money into the company hoping to get dividends. In this situation, the individual is absolutely crushed.

So, as a staunch individualist myself, if I am to be forced to live in a capitalist economy, I wish to at least be able to advocate for myself as an individual for my own interests against capital. However, since capital is at all times a massive collective, even when only represented by one's immediate supervisor, it is necessary for workers to organize themselves as a collective so they can meet on equal grounds.

But now let's say we live in a society in which the NAP "the kindergartner's rule", as Stefan Molyneux puts it, has been accepted as the universal morality across a given society, thus making it, by definition, "anarcho"-capitalist. Unless a bussiness was willing to take a hit on their profits just to appease their workers by letting them unionize, there would be absolutely no unions in such a society. In fact, if the Austrianfree market holds, whatever company chooses to let their workers unionize would just naturally go out of bussiness since unions always produce less profits for capital.

What I'm essentially trying to get at is that unions, while not my actual ideal representation of society, are a good thing to have in a capitalist economy and "anarcho"-capitalism would produce zero of them (very few, if I am to use your own terminology).