Unions in the US are on the ropes. Union membership is down, and companies have loads of resources and help to stymie unionization efforts. Frankly, unionizing at all is a successful unionization effort at the moment, since it shows other people it can be done. Can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

It’s on the ropes in corporate America - but not in the public sector.

I know this is just one example, but public school teacher unions don't seem to be doing so great, seeing how teaching is still the example always brought up as the most tragically underpaid profession.

Sure, a union isn't a magic bullet that fixes all problems, but I know school teachers in some very different districts in the US, and their pay is universally awful for the amount of time they put in, and some of them even end up having to buy their own school supplies, out of pocket, because their classroom is way underfunded. I guess we could argue that, without the unions, things would be even worse, but I still think teachers unions have mostly failed their members.

On the flip side, police officer unions seem to be doing pretty great, negotiating reasonably high pay, and helping to shield their members from accountability for wrongdoing.

Like you said it depends on the sector. I have a lot of friends that work for the state and it seems like their unions are doing great. Six figures, guaranteed raises, 2 Days in office per month, and what seems from an outsider to be like a 20 hour work week

Labor movements don't like public sector unions. When unions are talked about, it's almost entirely assuming private sector unions.

Well it could be management didn't meet labor's demand and labor got the brewery closed. So in that sense it could be success.

20th century labor movement: We want improved working conditions and more jobs to exist, let’s bargain in pursuit of that goal

21st century labor movement: we’d consider it a success to destroy all of the jobs altogether rather than accept less than 100% of our demands (which may or may not be economically feasible).

It sure incentivizes eliminating human labor as fast as possible.

That's not exactly being generous to the unions. The corporations fight unionization at every turn, so the unions need to play aggressive to get the kinds of wins that keep them being supported. At the same time, the corporations have taken the position that unionization is such an existential threat that they'll happily close a profitable location if it unionizes, in order to make an example of them, raising the stakes for unionization even higher. Meanwhile, the government will happily back the bigwigs at every turn.

The result is that good faith negotiations between capital and labor are now impossible. If the government would do its job, and seriously punish companies and investors (think less "angry email" and more "Old Yeller") who engage in illegal union busting, then unionization wouldn't be a massive risk for the employees, and more modest demands could be seen as acceptable.

The best way to 'fight' unionization is to offer a great employment package, so that the workers are reasonably happy. Workers know that unions come wih a lot of disadvantages. And unions often use heavy-handed methods to create a union shop, like effectively open elections and shaming.

But who says that’s related?