We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side. The hostess example is a good one, as

We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side. The hostess example is a good one, as they would not take a reasonable salary after the market turned, over 18,000 people lost their jobs, and now they get to re-emerge with no unions...I guess that is what you mean by better off. However, I would just like to point out, that companies do not go to people's houses and foist unfair job offers on them. There is a reason that companies have an advantage on negotiation in general, that is because there are not many companies, but there are many potential employees. It is the burden of the potential employee to stand out and demonstrate his or her value in that situation. Why should you have a job instead of someone else? Why should you make more? Why should you make less? In reality, they are good at getting floor-sweepers $32 an hour, while limiting other workers with ambition through seniority and contract prices for "classes" of people. They are good at getting employees to only do the minimum amount to fulfill their work obligation and be a slave to that corporation. After all, where else are you going to get those benefits and wages with no training or skills? In my opinion, unions have destroyed industry in America and led to the wealth disparity that we now have to deal with, by encouraging industry to seek cheaper labor in other countries that do not have unions. I already agree that unions helped American in the early part of last century, but have been an albatross since. If unions only petitioned for labor laws to protect all employees, not just union employees, and if union used collective bargaining to set a base wage (with each person's individual wages depended on his or her ability and work ethic), I would be all for them.