There are many different types of unions. The types of unions that organize low-wage workers aren't the same unions that organize high-wage workers or workers in talent-based fields like Hollywood, music, etc.
Workers choose what they want the union to be, and how it is organized, as part of unionizing.
Once established the union is largely inflexible and not likely or able renegotiate the structure... that is just how it works historically.
Folks mentioning it isn't just FUD because you don't agree, for some of us it's experience.
Some of the unions were for low-skilled laborers. Others were for highly-skilled talent-based workers. And two were government unions. Each union was differently organized to meet the needs of its specific set of workers.
You can't make blanket statements like "once a union is established its largely inflexible" since the history of American unions is expressly opposite of that statement. Every major union has undergone massive structural changes multiple times. Unions have merged, split up, merged again, died, resurrected, etc. A history of American unions would be as complex as Game of Thrones, with even more violence and only a bit less sex.
s/Socialism/Unions/; s/America/Tech/; s/poor/workers/; s/millionaires/billionaire founders/
Today, besides a few notable exceptions like Hollywood and the screen actors guild, unions are only growing in the public sector, and that's because taxpayers are forced to subsidize their inefficiency.
Also, socialism did take root in America. Look at the percentage of GDP consumed by government spending since 1900. It's steadily grown, especially on social welfare programs. America paid a very heavy price to gain real world experience with unions/socialism. Let's hope that after paying the price from that century-long mistake, it learns a lesson.
It was the rise of the executive class that doomed both America's manufacturing and its unions. It turns out that when the people who don't actually make anything have total leverage, they do a good job of fucking everything up.
The entire passenger rail service also went bankrupt due to the demands of the Brotherhoods, which had a stranglehold on the industry.
This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces, including the rise of the automobile and the dominance of the cargo transport industry in America, which owns almost all of the rail lines in the US and prioritizes freight shipping over passenger conveyance.
When US manufacturing was expanding the fastest was when unions had no power, in the late 19th century, and that was also when wages were increasing at their fastest rate. Unlike the post-war wage growth, the wage growth of the late 19th century did not come at the expense of the industry that was providing those wages.
>>This is simply false. Passenger rail service went bankrupt as a result of many forces
You should read up on the agreement that the brotherhoods forced on the passenger rail lines and what that did to their financial position. The growing power of the brotherhoods is primarily what did the rail lines in.
America's manufacturing prowress also coincided with the prowress of unions.
And I think the word you want is "prowess".
My experience with US unions is that they're largely just another layer of bureaucracy that can be as unresponsive as any management structure, and in many cases you can't quit the union in the sense that you still work in the system / rules they negotiate. The reliance on seniority in US unions (granted not all do) tend to result in limited prospects for new people and protections for older workers who often see little value in expanding skills since time alone provides all the protection / advancement they need.
Also the exact protections you get from a union are negotiated and not necessarily what you want / expect ...