My answer is both YES and NO. I have needed to take some time to explain this in a way that cannot be misinterpreted. Organizations of any size tend to act in ways to preserve and enhance that organization. This is true for a school of fish, a pod of whales, a family unit, a city government, a drug cartel, the Republican Senate, the AMA, large companies, our Country and world-wide alliances. These organizations will take actions to the detriment of other organizations as they protect and enhance themselves. That is the positive part of unionization. It allows union organizations, with some collective ‘clout’, to protect itself by protecting its membership against the collective ’clout’ of company’s who may abuse its members- kind of an equal match-up. Unionization has certainly improved worker’s rights and has protected them from corporate abuse- but there are also a couple of downsides. First, one-size-fits-all union rules may appeal to the general membership but they also can limit an individual worker’s advancement. I recall a conversation with a VP of what today would be about a $500M company after his vacation to Rome. He was lamenting the fact that they employed some highly skilled technicians with the kind of ‘gifted’ skills that contributed to the majestic construction he had seen- but he had no way of showing them how much they were valued or rewarding them financially, because Union rules required in-grade promotions be given based on seniority. This was a disservice to both the employees and to the Company. It disincentivized worker involvement in processes that would benefit both the workers and the company. Next, In today’s world the consolidation of many unions into huge organizations give those huge unions an unbalanced ‘clout’ over companies and result in negotiated wages and benefits that are out of line with the market. I recall a radio interview some time ago with a machinist out of work during a targeted auto manufacturer strike. He was complaining about losing the $70K he had been earning while on strike. The interviewer asked if the strike was hitting him so hard, why didn’t he just find other work. He said no, any non-UAW job would not pay more than $50K. Interviewer asked, do you think it fair that you are earning that much more? He replied: “No, as a union member, I deserve this”. I believe Union clout in this instance led to a situation where this UAW worker had the best defined-benefit retirement package in existence at the time and additionally had the best wages in his field. Before the restructuring of the auto industry after the AGI incident, it is no wonder that competing products from foreign automakers (who admittedly do not have the same worker standards that we do) have led to so much manufacturing being moved off-shore. So, I feel that worker rights definitely need to be protected and enhanced. I also believe that the big umbrella unions are far too powerful in that they are organizations with too much ‘clout’ and that organizations evolve to protect the organization’s interests, not necessarily it’s individual member’s interest. I think as organizations, the same kind of anti-trust laws that broke up large dominating corporate organizations, need to be applied to these large dominating union collectives as well. … … … It is clear that the balance of power has been moving toward Corporations and that Union protections are once again needed. There are legislative ways to ensure that workers are valued stakeholders in a Corporation’s future, particularly in publicly owned and regulated companies - to rebalance and re-align priorities for the long-term common good of workers, shareholders, and company growth alike- to truly compete internationally by providing better products and services like we used to do.