This paper compares the welfare outcomes obtained under alternative unionization regimes (decentralized vs. centralized wage setting) in a duopoly market in which shareholders delegate strategic decisions to biased (overconfident or underconfident) managers. In such a framework, the common tenet that consumer surplus and overall welfare are always higher under decentralized wage setting is completely overturned. Indeed, in the presence of centralized unionization (industry-wide union), firm shareholders always prefer to hire more aggressive or less conservative managers and, as a result, output (consumer surplus) and overall welfare are larger than in a decentralized wage setting structure.