Yes, I mentioned exactly that. However, first, many workplace safety rules were promulgated by govt commissions formed in response to specific events. They cou

Yes, I mentioned exactly that. However, first, many workplace safety rules were promulgated by govt commissions formed in response to specific events. They could be established via a one-time campaign, without a permanent institution like unions... just like many other safety and other standards - we don't have an all-encompassing seatbelt-union or anti-smoking union or low-car-exhaust union, just one-time campaign followed by a pointed intervention. Even such easier-to-violate, more nebulous policies as 40-hour work week generally persisted, and spread around the world, despite decline in unionization. Additionally, salary and working conditions for many occupations (e.g. software) are great based purely on market forces, without unions. It's not a given that most of the good impact of unions wouldn't have happened without them. But again, sure, I did grant some credit to unions for that. However, one may also grant nukes some credit in saving many lives by ending WWII early, and yet not be pro-nuke. Why do you choose to judge unions on that one episode, and not many of their negative impacts?