> The corporation you work for can be political and has unilateral control over whether you get a job. The corporation can make political contributions and lobby.

You may think I'm ok with that, but I'm not. I don't think companies should be political vehicals unless that's their goal (like the Free Software Foundation or the EFF).

> Corporation C-level execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers.

I don't see it that way. First of all the executives are the ones managing the company. Without their planning there would be no work for anyone to do. Union bosses convinced some group of people that they needed their help. After that they threatened the owner of a company saying "If you hire off union, we'll go on strike". Because of that the company won't hire off union. Now the union boss has a monopoly on who does and doesn't get to work for a specific company.

If that isn't anti-worker I don't know what is.

Second, lets say I engage in a discussion with an employer and they say "Hey, we would only make money hiring you at this rate" and I decide that it's fine because I'm industrius and they'll promote me after a specific amount of time. I don't want some third party coming in and saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! THEY HAVEN'T JOINED THE UNION! THEY CAN'T BE PAIED LESS THEN US".

You've turned hiring into a power game. If the employer is allowed to hire people below the union rate then the union is fucked. They've lost all of their gargining power. If the union looses it's power, they'll stop paying their dues. If they stop paying their dues the boss looses money. So what happens then? The union boss has a vested interest in lobbying to keep their job relevant. They've stopped working for the good of the worker and are now working for their paycheck. We've seen that at least here in NJ with union protection laws.

> But the corporation is working (in practice) solely for the shareholders.

Well yea that's the point. A company is just a few people getting together and saying "Let's do X because it will make us money". They then hire people to all do a very specific subset of problem X. The people aren't forced to work on that specific subset or at that company, they can work at another if they don't like it here.

On the other hand, at least where I live, a union is state-wide. If I don't want to give money to a union and I want to work off union then I have to move to another state. I'm completely screwed because every company shares a union.

> It seems to me that Unions are no better/worse than the corporation except that their duty is to their members.

They don't care about their members. They think of their members as a cash source. This illusion that someone is looking out for you is crazy. It's acctually in their best interests to keep working conditions poor enough that people don't like their jobs while still doing easy meaningless things to make people think they are productive.

Now granted not all unions are like this but the ones I've seen definetly are.

> In this way Unions don't need to be a paragon of virtue because they're a balance to corporate power (even if a bit of a greasy one).

This is an ends-meets-the-means situation. I don't think that greasy wheels are the ones I should be giving my money to and I definetly don't want to be forced to work for, in, or under the thumb of a union.

Just because something is called a "union" doesn't mean it's for the people it has united. Most unions are for the union boss and their chronies to make a nice pile of money.

Now, again. Not all unions are like this. This is one of those "absolute power corrupts absolutely" things. I'm completely fine with unions run by people who work at a specific plant where the union boss is actually someone who works at this plant and where the union's dues are actually the amount needed to hire only the barging person at the end of the groups contract.

The sad thing is most unions aren't like that. They're run by someone too big for their boots who want's to make a quick buck and is fine with lying to a bunch of people to make it happen and who'll make you thank them for the pleasure.

Also, this assumption that the "execs are taking large paychecks off the backs of low wage factory workers" is not shared by the average person. The Execs are there because they make decitions about how the company is run, has been run, and will be run. Without them the company wouldn't function just like how without the workers the company wouldn't function. Devaling them just makes people look bad in the eyes of the average worker. Very few people, asside from the small small number of radical communists, I've met actually think this and they are actively turned away by people perpetuating it.

If you want to sell unions:

* Don't lead with communism/"These people don't deserve it, because!"
* Show a list of unions that are run by people who work at the company
* Tell people that the corruption is a problem but you want to lobby to fix it by removing state-wide union monopoly laws
* Don't disallow people to work off unions. If it's acctually worse, then it should just make the union look better.
* Don't tell people who work hard that you know better then them and that they'd not be able to survive without the union's help.
* Don't charge union dues that are more then what is acctually needed (1 full time lawer, an office, a monthly meeting place). A union is meant to make things affordable to those who need it the most, not to make it mandatory.

That will change people's minds about unions.