Simon, I never stated that. I pointed out that such was presumably his argument, and that he never even attempted to make a case for it.

That he never even argued his case, and that you respond as if I said something I didn't, is why this is so boring and offensive. It's a nonsensical conversation because you're (plural) not responding to what's been said. Or even making any argument for what you're asserting.

If it's undisputed, why haven't you made any argument for it? I said that unions, while having done some good decades ago, are outdated and nearly exclusively hurt society today. While you obviously disagree, you've made absolutely no argument for that position. Nobody disputed a word of my explanation of how unions harm all of society.

Nobody made arguments for unions helping people beyond "poor people should obtain higher wages through coercion and government force!" Nobody gave an argument for unions beyond "if poor people can force extortion on society, it'll benefit them!"

Nobody responded to the fact that this raises the cost of living in society, hurting the poor more the most, because it often means paying no-skill labor ridiculous wages for work a 16 year old would gladly do to earn a few bucks and gain experience. Nobody responded to the fact that productivity is reduced by unions today (thus cost-of-living is increased, thus standard-of-living is decreased), harming the poor disproportionately.

You're arguing for using government force to force society to pay more for labor than it's worth. The poor suffer for this the most, having the least to spare. It's welfare in a different form, and it's welfare that even the poor are forced to pay for (upping their need/usage of welfare programs). It's inefficient and wasteful to add layers of bureaucracy to distribute welfare in so many forms and, in the case of labor unions, force even those on welfare to pay into this other welfare fund.

If you really want to help the poor, I think you should advocate smarter welfare and training programs incentivizing economic mobility, not another layer of welfare that others on welfare pay for as much as anybody else. The costs of government-forced artificially high wages are not progressive/graduated like our tax system; the poor pay just as much or close to it per capita as the rich. I think if you want to subsidize the standard of living of the working poor you should do it directly without all of the coercion and meddling with what should be relatively free markets that unions do (and without the harm to productivity/cost-of-living/standard-of-living).

Oh look, the second half of this post is another argument that won't be disputed or responded to. Just pretend I said that labor unions do more than I give them credit for. Who cares that you're unable to name what that supposedly would be. Just say "gotcha!" and pretend.

Pity that some company like Bain Capitol doesn't come in and buy and fix hostess.  Wait, sorry, I forgot.... Bain is evil because it makes companies profitable and no one wants to eat an evil twinkie