While unions have made breakthroughs in worker rights over the years, it's pretty safe to say it really isn't about that anymore. Now it's all about the money, and getting as much as possible of it from the company, which I guess is presumed to have infinite amounts of cash. On a global scale, a unioned worker getting $40/hour most likely isn't doing $40 worth of work. That same work would be worth a lot less in Europe, and a tiny fraction in most Asian countries. While it's great news for the card-carrying American, it's not so great for the American company in the long run, which seems to be a common trait in a lot of recent union policies I've heard of. It's temporarily shuffling money around. It's seen as a huge victory for the average worker initially, but what when the company goes bankrupt because they couldn't compete price wise with non-union labor. The company has to raise prices to compensate for union policies, and now imported items are cheaper and of comparable quality. The general public has no incentive to buy American anymore. Sales drop, companies go bankrupt, Americans are out of jobs. The economy declines, and prices rise faster than income. People are forced to buy cheaper imported products to get by. Who has the money now? Asia.
The UAW kept squeezing GM with policies requiring a laid off worker to receive something like 90% of their salary and be paid $15-20 more than a comparable American working at a Toyota factory doing the same job. When they saw GM was about to go flatline, they retracted their policies and started begging the government for the bailout to save the company they helped ruin, in addition to GMs declining quality and over-saturation of the market. However, the UAW claims that high gas prices caused the automotive crisis and not their policies. Huh?
If there's a hidden or flip side to this I'd love to hear it, but I haven't really found a whole lot of evidence that unions are helping America as a whole either. I'm not trying to piss off any union members, and I know that not all unions are the same. I'm also not saying that unions caused the economic mess, but I do think they had a part in the big chain reaction, another factor in the money imbalance that caused the economic crash. Just saying perhaps unions took things a bit too far.
I remember reading in a history of Ford that Henry Ford had once said that unions would mess with his company "over his dead body", as unioned workers at GM and Chrysler were doing sit-ins and strikes. Ford's workers were paid $6 for an eight hour shift, a fair wage at the time. He refused to sign a contract until Pearl Harbor, when the UAW changed their contract promising they wouldn't strike and interfere with war production. As a businessman, I really can't see the fault in his reasoning.