> Union membership/power has been steadily decreasing over the past 50 years. To me, it seems disingenuous to refer to "big labor" as if they're some sort of po

> Union membership/power has been steadily decreasing over the past 50 years. To me, it seems disingenuous to refer to "big labor" as if they're some sort of powerhouse given the way that corporate interests have been chipping away at them. Some states have passed less union-friendly laws, and firms have located to those states and have massively invested in robotics and automation simply to avoid the morass associated with having a unionized labor force. When unions are too strong (such as they have been in the past) they take too much for their own members at the expense of the health of the firm, and the firm dies. In the case of the automakers and the auto worker pensions, the pensions were negotiated as defined benefit plans and backed by the PBGC. Lawmakers failed to require firms to pay adequate PBGC premiums, and so when the companies failed taxpayers are left holding the bag. Workers need to have power, but unions are on the decline because they got too greedy and resulted in massive (and inefficient) economic shifts to route around them. Thus they are less relevant now than in years past, but significant harm has been done. This is not just the fault of the unions, but of the politicians and firms that colluded to make the pension deals possible and who refuse to let dying firms simply die. Unless we want to go back to a world where everyone aspires to become a "lifer" at a firm and retire after holding one job for his/her whole working life, unions really can't offer much. The economy shifts much more rapidly now and I'd be shocked if skills that are highly marketable this year are still marketable in 10 years.