I'm not convinced.

I have two uncles who worked for the same company, in different departments but in similar roles. Both were engineers, one was a CAE, and the other an ME. The CAE was not part of a union, and the ME was. They had a comparable lifestyle, so I assume they made a comparable salary (they live about a mile from each other, in a similarly sized house, drive similar cars, take similar amounts of vacations, etc).

Here's the work history of my unionized uncle:

• multiple unpaid strikes, where the main output was a marginal benefit to employees (from tertiary sources, it wasn't worth the strike)
• layoff (maybe 2? I don't recall), and later rehire in a separate department (was laid off for months); this resulted in complications with the company pension (I think the pension got rolled into the 401k because the new group hadn't negotiated a pension)
• consistent work location - always worked at the same plant, except for a handful of visits to others

And here's the work history of my non-unionized uncle:

• no layoffs, and optional participation in strikes
• inconsistent work location, but had some WFH flexibility in the last 15-ish years of employment (i.e. could work 9/80s, WFH one day/week, etc)
• maintained control over retirement benefits, so retired with a pension and a 401k

This is obviously a very small sample, so it's hardly enough evidence to say whether unions are a net positive or net negative. So whether a union is better for you depends on a lot of factors, such as:

• role - white collar jobs benefit less from unions vs blue collar jobs
• unions can suck, and non-unionized employers can rock; the latter can change overnight, whereas the former likely won't
• your best tool is your own personal skillset; regardless of whether you're in a union, ensure your skills are up-to-date so you have a good chance of getting a new job should you lose yours

But one thing that should be universally true is that openly anti-union employers should be avoided.