While we readers of DailyKos regularly decry the erosion of labor unions, I expect that the general populace does not. First, most statistically don't belong to one, nor are they of the family of a union member. So, why should they care? Historically, they should care for many reasons, some found on the bumpers of cars, union made or not: “ Enjoy your weekend? Thank a union member!”
Of course, there are more reasons,-- worker safety, child labor laws, a living wage-- among them.
Yet, many of us who do/did not work under union rules judge unionism not by those who make cars, or build bridges, or keep our power plants or communication nets humming. Our most obvious reminder of unionism is that of the state and local governments, organizations that impact us daily, and at tax time.
In my case, it is/was routine to see a newspaper photo of a line of applicants stretching around the block to sign up for a shot at a government labor position---be it golf course grass cutter or administrative aide—and this was in our boom times, not just now. Now, we can easily predict what happens first when government budgets are cut: The people who do the actual labor get laid off, but the very well paid senior staffers stay, at the same salary as before. With a pension plan that they do not directly contribute into. True, they manage more work with fewer staff now, and that's more work for them, perhaps....but in reality, the work done seems to diminish for the same reason: Fewer workers to do the work. At least, that's the scenario that's understood by many of their “customers.” No matter that those senior managers are not always part of the union. The public doesn't know that, in general.
As a one time business owner, I've seen talented union member folks leave the private sector for the security, salary and vacation packages of the public sector. It was certainly in their best interest. Those lines of applicants stretching down the blocks stick in the public's minds. A colleague who, when being considered for a county position, was asked for, and gave, their current wage and compensation package details. ...and then was told by the HR rep, “No, I think you need to revise this upwards, to mirror the wages paid”... in a much larger world-class city. The applicant got the job, at a great pay raise inconsistent with local wage studies, to illustrate that a rising tide inflates all (government labor) rafts. Our elected officials well know that public unions are a mainstay of their campaign funding, and woe to the one or two of them that do not do the unions' bidding.
And then we learn, on Rachel Maddow recently, that when given an option, quite a few union dues payers opted out of the automatic payroll plan that sent their monthly dues to the union shop. That was a surprise, to me at least. I don't know how government union dues are collected in my state.
My point, assuming I have one, is that the general public may likely be unsupportive of unions of any stripe, in that those models with which we are best acquainted have a less than stellar image, IMO. That's regrettable, in both cases. How can we change this?