Unions are very much worth it. Without unions, the rich keep all the money and give only a pittance to the workers. Unions give power to workers, and that’s why the rich hate them.

The pay is many times NOT the most important thing in the negotiations, only one of many. Benefits and job security is typically more important.
It is well worth the effort. No humor in the subject to be found IMHO.

Back when I was a Union worker, we used to point out how badly the first line managers were treated by the Company, and how they should unionize.

For most of the years I worked for the government, we had free healthcare with a premium policy. Now as a retiree, my healthcare is free, still with the same premium policy. That, in itself, was worth fighting for, even though as government workers we couldn’t strike. It was worth having a union and working under a contract. We also, in the contract, negotiated for time off – great quantities of sick time, personal time and annual (aka vacation) time. That was really the tip of the iceberg as far as what was in the contract.

It is usually a financial burden to strike. This is one of the barriers to striking and one of the ways it is powerful. The workers show that they would rather not work at all than continue under the conditions and terms of the bosses. If an individual did this, they would just need to look for a new job, but collective action brings the machine to its knees, and brings the rich to heel. Strikes are basically a contest of who can survive without the other for longer.

Depends, somewhat, on the union. Larger unions but some of the union dues into a fund which is used to pay workers during a strike (strike pay). to offset the losses. But it varies by the union size and wealth.

But the broad answer is YES, long term, strikes pay off – or it wouldn’t be worth striking.

Strike Fund.

Strikes, when successful, improve working conditions not only for the workplace involved, but also at other places competing in the same job market.