Obviously, companies don't want to spend more on labor than they have to. But I doubt that's any company's major concern with unions. The issue, as I see it, is

Obviously, companies don't want to spend more on labor than they have to. But I doubt that's any company's major concern with unions. The issue, as I see it, is the lack of flexibility once unions take hold. Now you have a large democratic body with a lot of control over hiring and firing and with undue input about who in the company does what and according to which rules, which means, ultimately, over the company's ability to address novel challenges. Just to take one silly example, when I worked at the phone company we weren't allowed to move our phones ourselves any time we moved desks. That was a task that by contract had to be performed by a union lineman. So a guy would show up, eventually, and unplug your phone from one desk and then plug it into another. That kind of nonsense was in place all throughout the company. All kinds of ridiculous details were written down and enforced. The phone company barely even tries to be competitive, so whatever, I guess. You probably pay for that in your cellphone bill, but it's not the end of the world. But if you're actually trying to be nimble and efficient, then that kind of stuff makes it a lot harder.