...assuming that you are arguing why unions have to reevaluate their goals. In fact, however, you are arguing that Unions should no longer exist at all, which is a load of crap.

In the absence of unions, or some form of collective worker bargaining, there is always the danger of under-bidding, where someone who needs a job offers to do the job for a bit less. Then someone undercuts them, and on and on. It's just part of how it goes, and with the national minimum wage so far below a living wage, we quickly get to the point where working is almost not worth the effort, which does marvels for the unemployment rate.

And that is just the surface level, free market type stuff. Of course employers will take the lowest bid most of the time. When it comes to blue collar labor, the difference for the product is essentially non-existent. But what about when the employers get greedy? When executives start playing shenanigans with the balance sheets, and hard workers find themselves out of work so a boardroom can add an extra million? Who stands up for the workers, then?

I have never denied that labor unions can be (and often are) at least partially corrupt. But given that the guys across the negotiating table are no different, I fail to see why that is such an indictment.